Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Leeds Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries," presented by Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act), to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BERKSHIRE REGIMENT (SPECIAL ALLOWANCES).

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India why the Berkshire Regiment, quartered at Rasmak, in Waziristan, are deprived of special allowances granted to the regiments which preceded them there; whether the Commander-in-Chief in India has promised to reconsider this withdrawal of such allowances; and what action is to be taken to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all regiments in this territory?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The grant of field service concessions generally to troops serving in Waziristan was withdrawn when Waziristan ceased to be regarded as a field service area. My Noble Friend is now considering, in communication with the Government of India, the question of restoring some part
of them, and an announcement will be made very shortly.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the Noble Lord say whether the concession will be made retrospective?

Earl WINTERTON: I will answer that question when the announcement is made. I have not said that there would be any concession. I said that there would be an announcement very shortly.

PROVINCIAL SERVICES.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been come to with regard to the claims of those members of the provincial services who have retained their non-Asiatic domicile to have extended to them the benefits conferred on their colleagues in the covenanted services by the Act of 1919 and by the Report of the Lee Commission, in so far as these latter have been adopted; and whether, in the event of the matter not having been decided, due attention will be paid to the recommendations on the subject contained in the letter from the Viceroy of India to the Secretary of State for India, dated Delhi, 5th March, 1919, and in the Report of Lord South-borough's Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend is considering the position of the officers to whom my hon. Friend draws attention, and, in making his decision, will bear in mind the papers referred to.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the Noble Lord put forward the suggestion that all British officers with non-Asiatic domicile who hold gazetted appointments prior to the Act should be brought under the Report, of the Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: All the relevant circumstances have been taken into consideration by my Noble Friend.

GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY (STAFF).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any representations have been made to him as to the treatment of old members of the staff of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway in connection with the termination of the company's contract on
30th June next, when the railway will be taken over by the State; and if he can make any statement regarding the position?

Earl WINTERTON: Representations have been made by the company as regards their London office staff, which are being considered.

MUDDIMAN COMMITTEE.

Mr. SCURR: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take on the Report of the Muddiman Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As this will be one of the subjects discussed with Lord Reading may I ask whether there is any intention of securing a general agreement in all parts of the House or will it be made a party issue?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that arises out of the question on the Paper.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I presume that the Noble Lord will not be in a position to make any statement until he has seen the Viceroy?

Earl WINTERTON: Obviously I think that follows.

VICEROY (VISIT TO ENGLAND).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what date the Viceroy is expected to arrive in this country; and how long he expects to be absent from India?

Earl WINTERTON: The. Viceroy is leaving India on the 10th April, and will probably reach this country about the 23rd or 24th April. He will be clue back in India not later than the 10th August.

ARRESTS IN BENGAL.

Mr. SCURR (for Mr. LANSBURY): 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State, for India. whether there is any distinction between men arrested under the Bengal Ordinance and those arrested under Bengal Regulation III of 1818; whether
orders of detention under the Ordinance have been substituted for those under Regulation III in respect of all prisoners arrested in October, 1924; whether it is intended to use Regulation III again so long as the Ordinance or the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which takes its place, are in operation; and whether all State prisoners are now under the Ordinance with the exception of those who were arrested and detained before the Ordinance came into operation?

Earl WINTERTON: All the persons recently arrested in Bengal under the Regulation of 1818 are now treated as arrested under the Ordinance, which permits less rigid treatment of individual cases and authorises the grant of allowances to their families. But, obviously, I cannot give any undertaking that new and unforeseen circumstances may not necessitate further arrests under the Regulation.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI (INDIAN LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. SCURR: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received the Report of the Government of India Committee on labour conditions in Fiji; and, if so, whether he will have it printed as a Command Paper?

Earl WINTERTON: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the deputation which visited Fiji in 1922. The question of Indians in Fiji, dealt with in the Report of the deputation, was taken up by the Committee appointed by the Government of India last year to confer with the Secretary of State for the Colonies on matters concerning Indians in certain Colonies and definite proposals regarding Indians in Fiji are now on their way to the Government of India. This being the position, the publication of the Report may not be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

NATIVE LABOUR.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any accurate account of the recent speech by the Acting Governor of Kenya on the coercion of native labour?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): A telegram has been sent to the Acting Governor asking for the fullest available report of the speech to be sent by mail. It cannot be expected for three or four weeks. The Acting Governor has reported by telegram that he made no suggestion or proposal for forced or compulsory native labour. He adds that the policy mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for East Woolwich on the 23rd March is being strictly followed.

LAND POLICY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, if the Islington Committee on Land Policy in Africa is not to sit and report, this House will have an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Land Tenure Commission of Kenya Colony before Government sanction is accorded to any of the proposals contained in it?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The views of the late Governor of Kenya on land policy have been received, but no decision has been taken by my right hon. Friend, or will be taken until he has also considered the report of the East Africa Commission which deals very fully with this matter. When this report is discussed in the House, the recommendations in the report of the local Commission of 1922 can also be discussed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there no chance of them seeking to compromise by converting these leaseholds into freeholds meanwhile, as recommended by the Report?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: None whatever. That requires legislation and none will be undertaken in any way until these various proposals have been considered.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Report is likely to be issued?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Report of the African Commission is in print, and it is merely a question of proof corrections to get it out. I am arranging, if it is not actually published by the time the House rises for the. Easter Recess, to lay a copy in dummy in order that it can be issued as early as possible during the Recess.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it understood that the Report of this Commission deals with the land question as well as other questions, or will that be excluded from their purview?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It will not be excluded from their purview, and we are dealing with it very fully in all respects.

SETTLEMENT POLICY.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the reported statement by Lord Delamere that if the policy laid down by the British Cabinet in the Kenya White Paper of 1923 proved to be, in the opinion of the settlers, impossible they would have to take steps to prevent its operation; and whether he will inquire if Lord Delamere was correctly reported?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir; I think it highly unlikely that any such statement was ever made, as Lord Delamere, when acting as leader of the colonists' delegation in 1923, publicly accepted the policy defined in the White Paper, and has ever since been laying emphasis on the importance of its being implemented completely.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do we understand that Lord Delamere was incorrectly reported, and, if so, may we obtain a correct report of what he said?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not seen any report which touches the question of the White Paper. I have searched various newspapers. I found one sentence in an alleged speech, and it does not touch this at all.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It was in the "Times."

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

OIL CONCESSIONS (ROYALTIES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the concessions made to oil concessionaries in Iraq involve the payment of royalties and, if so, on what basis; whether the revenue is ear-marked in any way for the reduction of the debt of the Iraq Government to this country; and, if not, why no steps were taken to
obtain security for the repayment of capital or interest on this debt, when these concessions were under discussion?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the terms of the concession recently granted by the Iraq Government to the Turkish Petroleum Company provide for the payment to that Government of a. royalty based primarily upon output; so far as I am aware there is no intention on the part of the Iraq Government specifically to assign future revenue from this source to the extinction of their debt to this country. His Majesty's Government consider that the Financial Agreement made under Article XV of the Anglo-Iraq Treaty affords sufficient security for the due discharge of that debt.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If large royalties are being paid, are we to get no repayment for the heavy cost of the garrison and Air Force in Iraq which made these concessions possible?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that these royalties are only paid when the oil is actually flowing.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: At the present moment there is no oil flowing. I said in my reply that the royalties are based on output, and we are not yet sure that, there is going to be any output.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely the time to ear-mark this is now, when we are uncertain.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is absolutely no intention of ear-marking. That would be highly reprehensible in view of our position in Iraq.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then if there is no oil, we are going on paying, and, if there is oil, we do not get any of our money back?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That would be absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations and to our whole position in Iraq, and I should like to repudiate that suggestion most strongly.

RAILWAYS (TRAFFIC AGENT).

Colonel DAY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is
aware that the contractor appointed by the Iraq Railways as sole agent for canvassing for traffic earned in the 10 months ending 31st March, 1923, more than2½lakhs of rupees; whether he can give the exact amount paid to the contractor for the period in question; and whether it has been found possible to limit payment of commission as suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor-General?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Secretary of State's attention has recently been drawn to the matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and the High Commissioner for Iraq has been requested to furnish a full report which has not yet been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. HELENA (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).

Mr. SCURR: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take with regard to the representations he has received from the inhabitants of St. Helena in favour of a Legislative Council, partly nominated and partly elected, for the island?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not received any representations from St. Helena on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the numbers of migrants from this country to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia and the Crown Colonies for the years 1913 and 1924, respectively?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply, and as the answer contains a table of figures, my hon. Friend will perhaps agree to its being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of British subjects recorded as emigrants from the United Kingdom to the undermentioned
divisions of the British Empire in 1913 and 1924 were as follows:


—
1913
1924.†


British North America
190,854
63,016


Australia
56,779
38,599


New Zealand
14,255
11,061


*British South Africa (including Rhodesia).
10,910
7,568


India (including Ceylon)
6,810
6,630


Other parts of the British Empire.
5,432
5,343


Total British Empire
285,046
132,217


†The numbers of emigrants to Rhodesia have not been separately recorded.


*The figures for 1924 are exclusive of emigrants from the Irish Free State.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how mach of the sum appropriated to the assistance of intending settlers under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, has up to the present been actually spent or allocated; and how many settlers have emigrated under the scheme?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on the 17th February last to a question asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff East (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke).

Sir J. MARRIOTT: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the expenditure to date on the scheme announced to the House by the Secretary for Overseas Trade on 28th May, 1924; and how many families have been settled under the scheme?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The scheme to which my hon. Friend refers is still under negotiation with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Do I understand that no families have been emigrated under the scheme and no money spent under it?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not under the new scheme referred to here.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any waiting list of persons who desire to take advantage of the Empire Settlement Act; if so, how many such persons there are; and what are the impediments, if any, to the immediate emigration of such persons?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no delay in arranging the passages of approved applicants for assistance under the Empire Settlement Act, and there is no waiting list of such persons. There is, of course, a large number of persons anxious to proceed overseas who, for various reasons, cannot be accepted as suitable settlers by the oversea authorities under existing schemes.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Have these persons been accepted as suitable by the home authority?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No; in any case of assistance they have to be accepted by the overseas authorities before they can get any help. The last word rests with Australia House or the Canadian authorities, as the case may be.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: To which Dominions are they being sent? Are they being sent to specific Dominions?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A certain number of them are going to all the Dominions.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

Sir V. WARRENDER: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the Dominions or Crown Colonies have taken advantage of the special terms of financial assistance provided by the Imperial Conference, 1923; and what schemes, if any, have been received from the Overseas Governments for development by means of this assistance?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Several applications have been received for assistance under the terms of Section 2 of the Trade Facilities Act, 1924, which was framed to carry out the scheme accepted by the Imperial Economic Conference, 1923; general agreement as to principle has been reached in the case of two schemes, but the final details have not yet been settled, and therefore I am unable to give particulars. The other applications are still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (LORD BALFOUR'S VISIT).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether he has any information in reference to any exhibition of popular feeling in connection with the visit of Lord Balfour to Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information other than that which appeared in the public Press.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will the Government make it quite clear that Lord Balfour is a Presbyterian?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly. I observe that he read the lessons yesterday in the Anglican Cathedral. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. JOHN BAKER: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been any additional expenditure for providing special safeguards for the distinguished visitor who is in Palestine for the purpose of opening the new Hebrew University; and whether the cost of the same will be borne by this country or by the population of Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of any additional expenditure having been incurred for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member, but if there had been any it would be borne by the Palestine Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARABIA (POLITICAL EXPENDITURE).

Mr. JOHN BAKER: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how it is proposed to disburse the £21,000 allocated for sundry political expenditure in Arabia; and if he will state the reason for the increase of £16,060 in this Vote for the year 1925–26?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the hon. Member will see from the details given in Sub-head G of Part 3 of the Middle Eastern Estimates, the sum of £20,000 has been included in order to meet the possibility of compensation becoming payable in connection with agreements pending with neighbouring Arab rulers. The payment will not in any case be a recurring one, and if the agreements referred to are not satisfactorily concluded it will not be made at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

IMPERIAL GRANT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the reasons which led to the arrangements made by the late Government for the making of a grant of £900,000 to the Irish Free State; for what purpose has the money been utilised by the Free State Government; and if he will arrange for papers giving details of the transaction to be laid upon the Table?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the detailed reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 16th December last to a question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster), of which I am sending him a copy; and, in reply to the second part, I would refer him to the reply which my right hon. Friend, gave on 16th February to a question addressed to him by the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). In reply to the third part, I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to the full information which has already been given to the House on this subject.

Sir F. HALL: With regard to the first part of my question, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply to which he has drawn my attention did not give any real answer to the first part of this question?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether, in connection with all these arrangements with the Irish Free State, the late Government departed in any way from the original agreement?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir; this payment by the late Government follows on precisely similar payments made by previous Governments. There has been no alteration of policy, but complete continuity, ever since the Wood Renton Commission started to operate, in the settlements come to with regard to the payments to be made by this country.

Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this £900,000 has been spent by the Government and we have got nothing at all in return for it?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that if my hon. Friend will read the reply—it was
a very long one—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave, he will see that this is a final discharge of the account which we owe in respect of past years, and has been agreed to by both sides.

IMPERIAL DEBT AND WAR PENSIONS CONTRIBUTIONS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contributions have been made in accordance with the terms of the treaty by the Government of Southern Ireland towards the redemption of Imperial debt and towards the cost of war pensions; and how such contributions compare with their obligations under the treaty?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone on the 2nd March, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 19th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give an approximate date for the proposed completion of the dock at Singapore?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on the 19th March by my right hon. Friend the First Lord, when introducing the Navy Estimates [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1925, cols. 2523–2524, Vol. 181].

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GOVERNMENT BUILDING).

Colonel DAY: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, seeing that a lease of 10 years has been obtained from the British Empire Exhibition or the ground landlords of the site of the British Government exhibit with the option of renewal from year to year, whether he can say for what purpose the building, which cost £93,000 to erect, will be used in 1926 and subsequent years?

Mr. SAMUEL: It is impossible to say what action will be taken in regard to
the Government building at Wembley until some decision has been taken as to the future of the exhibition area as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH CONSULAR OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what Consular Officers are now stationed in Russia, and in which cities or ports; and whether it is proposed to take any steps with a view to appointing any additional Consular Officers?

Mr. SAMUEL: In addition to the Mission at Moscow, assistant official agents have been appointed at Leningrad and Vladivostok. It is not proposed to make further appointments at present.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that there is a considerable amount of trade going on through Odessa, Novorossisk and other ports on the Black Sea, and is the hon. Gentleman content to have no Consular representative there at all?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think the question rests with the Prime Minister, but I do not agree with the premises of the hon. and gallant Member's question.

SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA IN BRITISH EMPIRE.

Sir F. HALL: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is now satisfied that the Russian Government is fufilling in a satisfactory manner their undertaking to cease all subversive propaganda work in this country and in British Dominions; and, if not, will he state what steps are being taken to enforce compliance with this obligation, particularly in the case of persons operating under the shelter of the Russian trade delegation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government have not considered it desirable or useful to repeat the warnings contained in the Notes of my predecessor and myself, but this must not be taken to mean that they are satisfied that propaganda has ceased.

Sir F. HALL: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the Russians are not carrying out the obligation they have entered into?

Mr. MACKINDER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any evidence that any members of the trade delegation are doing this?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I have any evidence that I can produce that any members of the trade delegation are doing so.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that the Third International carries out any of this propaganda?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Brig.-General CLIFTON BROWN: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how much of the £15,000,000 capital expenditure for providing ex-servece men and others with small holdings was spent on purchase of land and haw much for equipment of land?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): £9,600,000 has been expended on the purchase of land and £5,400,000 on equipment.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the uncertainty now prevailing among smallholders regarding the continuance of the present rebates on rent, he will consider the advisability of arranging for the rent of a small holding to be fixed at such a figure as will give the tenant a reasonable chance of making a living from his holding?

Mr. WOOD: The rents of small holdings provided under the Land Settlement Scheme have recently been revised in nearly every county. In the case of Shropshire, however, the Small Holdings Sub-Committee has, until now, continued to make temporary abatements, as it has been impossible to arrange for the inspection of the holdings owing to foot-and-mouth disease. A revaluation is now being carried out with a view to permanent reductions in rent being granted where necessary as from the half-year which ended Lady Day, 1925.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in further considering this very important matter, examine the great losses which these smallholders have sustained in running their small holdings, before he decides what reduction is to be made in the future?

Mr. WOOD: Of course, that, with other relevant facts, is always present in the minds of those who advise me about the question of revaluation.

SHEEP AND CATTLE.

Mr. G. HARVEY: 32 and 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) in view of the reduction of the numbers of sheep in the country, stated in the Linlithgow Report to be, approximately, 6,000,000 since the year 1900, if he will state what encouragement, if any, is being given to agriculturalists to at least make up this deficiency which must have a considerable bearing upon the present high food costs;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Linlithgow Report on meat supplies that since the beginning of this century cattle have increased in numbers by less than 1 per cent., whilst sheep have declined nearly 25 per cent.; and is the Department prepared to suggest any remedy?

Mr. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 16th February to the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece), a copy of which I am sending to him. The Linlithgow Report was based on figures for 1922, and since that date the number of cattle in Great Britain has increased by nearly 200,000, or about 3 per cent., while sheep have increased by over 1,600,000, or about 8 per cent.

SUGAR BEET.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether farmers who grow sugar beet have been given any opportunity to take a financial interest in the companies proposed to be formed under the subsidy scheme?

Mr. WOOD: I understand that the capital for the building of new factories in course of erection has been secured from sources other than the growers of sugar beet, as appeals in the past in this direction have been unsuccessful. I am,
however, informed that some of the new factory companies do contemplate giving individual growers, who so desire, the opportunity of taking up shares, of which in one case farmers have already taken advantage.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the profits for the year disclosed in the last balance-sheet issued by the Cantley beet-sugar factory; and how much this company paid during the same period to farmers for sugar beet?

Mr. WOOD: The last balance-sheet issued by the Cantley Beet Sugar Factery, dated the 11th October, 1923, showed a net profit of £103,081 14s. 11d. During the manufacturing season 1922–23, covered by this account, the average price paid to growers for their beets by the factory company was 35s. 11 d. per ton.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman yet received the balance-sheet of this company for last year?

Mr. WOOD: No, Sir; I do not think I can have, or my figures would have been based on it.

Mr. HARRIS: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres were planted with sugar-beet during 1924; and how much seed was supplied to farmers by the beet-sugar producers during the same period?

Mr. WOOD: 22,637 acres were planted with sugar-beet in Great Britain, and approximately 150 tons of seed were supplied to farmers by beet-sugar producers in 1924. I would add that all beet delivered to the factories is grown from seed which the factories have provided.

SWINE ERYSIPELAS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of deaths among pigs from pig erysipelas during each of the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?

Mr. WOOD: As swine erysipelas is not a scheduled disease, outbreaks and deaths are not reported to my Department, and I regret, therefore, that the desired particulars are not available.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give any kind of estimate of the severity of these deaths?

Mr. WOOD: Yes, Sir. I think it is about 3 per cent.—

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Three per cent. on the whole stock?

Mr. WOOD: —but I would rather not answer the question without notice, as I do not want to mislead my hon. and gallant Friend. If he will put the question down, I will give him as precise an estimate as I can.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the value of the specific vaccine and serum, at present only obtainable from the Continent, for the prevention of pig erysipelas; and if he will arrange for this remedy to be stocked by veterinary surgeons throughout this country?

Mr. WOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I would point out that for the last 20 years the Ministry has issued a leaflet on swine erysipelas, which, amongst other things, describes vaccine and serum treatment. I understand that at present supplies are only obtainable from the Continent, because the demand has not been such as to encourage firms in this country to stock the material. I have no power to arrange for this remedy to be stocked by veterinary surgeons throughout the country, but no doubt veterinary surgeons and firms will do so if pig owners will show them that there is a sufficient demand.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Would it not be advisable to arrange that there should be such a provision, which would obviously be to the advantage of the agricultural interest?

Mr. WOOD: Obviously, the desirability of such a provision would depend upon the demand. If there is a demand, there will be provision.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Should not the right hon. Gentleman's Department be ahead of the demand, for the sake of the educational value?

Mr. WOOD: We were so far in front of the demand that some years ago we
obtained a large supply of this serum, and the demand was so small that it was left on our hands.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Was not that due to lack of educational propaganda on the part of the Department?

Sir R. THOMAS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the request which is now being made to him tampers with the principles of Protection?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST HARTLEPOOL (WEEK-END POSTAL DELIVERIES).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will cause some relief assistance to be given to West Hartlepool Post Office so that postmen may still have a half-day holiday weekly, but that there may be also a delivery of letters between 2 p.m. on Saturday afternoon and 8 a.m. on Monday morning, as this gap in time and day of delivery is causing inconvenience in the town?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The arrangement by which the third delivery at West Hartlepool is suspended on Saturday—on which day the business houses close early—was agreed to by the town council over a year ago. I regret I am unable to maintain the weekly half-holiday without some curtailment of facilities

Sir W. SUGDEN: Is it not a fact that since the town council made this provision there have been very material alterations in regard to the business life of the town, and that, unless some provision is made, very serious unemployment will result from the shortage of deliveries of letters.

Viscount WOLMER: I shall delighted to confer with my hon. Friend on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the collection of £3,500 duty on toy magic-lanterns and kaleidoscopes, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, necessitated, for the
Customs examination, the opening of some 90,000 cases and entailed a charge of 1s. 6d. on each package for opening, in addition to other costs such as rent, breakage, and pilferage; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking action to obtain the exemption of such articles from duty?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I do not know what is the hon. and gallant Member's authority for the figure of £3,500 for the duty on toy magic lanterns. I cannot, however, accept the implication that the opening of 90,000 cases would have been avoided but for the operations of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It is necessary in the interests of the Revenue to require imported packages to be opened at the discretion of the Customs, irrespective of the nature of their declared contents. There is no power under the law to exempt articles, such as magic lanterns, which are dutiable as a whole, and it would be impracticable to grant exemption from duty in respect of such articles as might be claimed to be for use only as toys.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my authority is one of the leading men in the trade, and a former very respected Member of this Rouse—Mr. J. D. Kiley—who is a recognised authority on the subject; and does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that this veritable tax on the nursery should be imposed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUID EGGS (BORON PRESERVA TIVE).

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: 42 and 43.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is in possession of any evidence that the small quantities of boron preservatives permitted to be used in liquid eggs is deleterious to health; and, if so, will he state its nature;
(2) whether it has been decided to prohibit the use of boron preservatives in liquid eggs; and whether, before issuing Regulations on this matter, he will consider the probable increased cost of important foodstuffs into the composition of which eggs enter, seeing that
there is no adequate provision for cold storage in this country to make cold-storage eggs a practical substitute for liquid eggs?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The effect of boron preservatives was considered by the Departmental Committee on the use of preservatives in food, and they were unanimously of opinion that such preservatives are sufficiently harmful to justify their total prohibition. I have not yet settled the final form of the Regulations, and before doing so I shall certainly give full weight to such considerations as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Major CRAWFURD: Before coming to a final decision, will the right hon. Gentleman secure independent medical evidence?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am willing to receive representations from anybody.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALL-IN INSURANCE SCHEME.

Mr. CLARRY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister the position of the proposal for the all-in insurance scheme which was to include among its provisions those for old age and widows' pensions?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr.-Baldwin): I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the answers already given on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOGNE (EVACUATION BY BRITISH TROOPS).

Colonel DAY: 40.
asked the Prime Minister the approximate date on which it is proposed to withdraw the British forces from Cologne?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to name any date.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the position is becoming very invidious when week after week we fail to carry out our obligations and give no reason for doing so?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member's statement of fact.

Mr. MORRIS: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Government will be in a position to announce the defaults on the part of Germany in respect of which the evacuation of Cologne has been delayed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 19th March. But as I realise how much interest is taken in this question by hon. Members in all parts of the House, I will give the assurance that as soon as I have any information to impart I will at once communicate it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCHISE REFORM (METHOD OF VOTING).

Major CRAWFURD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the forthcoming conference on franchise reform will consider the method of voting at elections as well as the persons who are to vote?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I can only repeat what I said on Wednesday last, namely, that I am unable to make any further statement as to the scope of the conference.

Major CRAWFURD: Whereas on Wednesday of last week I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague to repeat the question this week, may I now repeat the supplementary question which I then put—if and when may I expect an answer to this very simple question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is rather hypothetical. The hon. and gallant Member can expect an answer when we have made up our minds.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY AND TRADE COMMITTEE.

Mr. GRANT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he can give information to the House as to the progress of the inquiry being made by the British Trade Committee of Inquiry; and if he can state when a Report may be expected from that Committee?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. Since their appointment, the Committee on Industry and Trade have
mainly been engaged in examining all available statistical and other material and taking evidence, and I understand they still have a good many witnesses to hear. I am not able to state when the Report of the Committee may be expected; but I may mention that the Committee propose that some of the information with which they have been furnished from official sources should be published, and a volume is now being prepared for issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS (CABINET COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to set up any form of committee of inquiry to study the question of the reform of the House of Lords; if so, what will be the composition of such Committee or other body; when it will be set up or appointed; and what will be the terms of reference?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government fully realise the importance of this subject, and I propose to set up a Cabinet Committee to examine the question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the terms of reference?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is a Cabinet Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Captain BENN: Will the inquiry be into the powers of the other House as well as the composition of the other House?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite possible, but we have not decided.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will they consider the abolition of the other House?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

Major CRAWFURD: 50.
asked the Prime Minister when the day which he has promised for the discussion of ex-ranker officers' pensions will be given; and will he leave this question to a free vote of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat his question in a week, I hope to be in a position to give him a definite reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).

Mr. MORRIS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state precisely what modifications His Majesty's Government has made in the recommendations of the Southborough Report with a view to meeting the claims or allaying the grievances of ex-service temporary civil servants?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of the memorandum showing the action to be taken in connection with or as supplementary to the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Southborough Committee. The hon. Member will see that no alteration is made in the recommendations of the Southborough Committee for the purpose of meeting the claims of ex-service temporary civil servants, but that supplementary arrangements are proposed for the permanent employment in the Civil Service of additional numbers of such men who would not benefit by the Southborough Report.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to circulate it as a White Paper, if that has not been done?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it has been done; but I will see.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

WOOD GREEN.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Wood Green Council is refusing to authorise the building of subsidy houses; and, if so, what steps he is taking to compel local authorities which, by refusing to operate the Housing Acts fully, are casting an increased burden upon the remaining local authorities?

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in communication with the local authority referred to and understand that the whole question is being reopened by the council.

SMALL DWELLINGS ACT (PURCHASES).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he contemplates legislation which will enable purchasers of houses on a weekly or monthly repayment system to occupy the houses without having first to pay an original deposit such as is now required under the Small Dwellings Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the amount which may be advanced by a local authority under the Act in question. This is fixed at a maximum of 90 per cent. of the market value of a house, and in view of the desirability of an owner-occupier having some definite stake from the outset in the property which he is acquiring I would not propose to introduce legislation amending the very generous provisions already made in this direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

ELECTORAL LAW.

Captain BENN: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the proposed new electoral law in Egypt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply 33 in the negative.

NILE WATER (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).

Major CRAWFURD: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Commission dealing with the distribution of Nile water has yet met, whether they will report before the new elections are held in Egypt; and, if not, can he make some authoritative statement calculated to allay the feeling occasioned by the ultimatum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commission held its first meeting more than a month ago and will report by the end of June.

RESERVED SUBJECTS.

Mr. MORRIS: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with the discussion with the Egyptian Government on the four reserved points?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Discussion on the reserved subjects has not been resumed since the conclusion of the conversations between my predecessor and Zaghloul Pasha.

TRIBUTE LOAN.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of the interest and sinking fund for the Egyptian tribute loan of 1891 and 1894 deposited with the National Bank of Egypt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the stated intention of the Egyptian Government the amount deposited in a blocked account with the National Bank of Egypt is that which would normally have been remitted to the agents of these loans since default took place.

Sir F. WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the deposit is made in Cairo or in London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 63.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he accepts the findings of the Retired Naval Officers' Retired Pay Inquiry Committee appointed by the late Government, or if he will, in view of the close voting of that Committee and of the strong feeling on the subject, appoint another Committee to inquire into the matter?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him on the 17th December and also to that given to the hon. Member for Devon-port on the 19th February.

Sir B. FALLE: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will, as soon as the Recess is over, receive a small deputation on the matter?

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Member aware that the legal aspect of this matter was not examined, although before the Inquiry was set up a promise was made that every aspect of the case would be looked into?

Mr. DAVIDSON: If the hon. Member will look at the reply given on 19th February, which is very long and exhaustive, he will find that that aspect is dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS, BIRMINGHAM (SENTENCES).

Mr. COOPER: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether his attention has been called to the case of two youths, Stephen McDonald, aged 16, and Albert Staff, aged 18, who were recently sentenced at Birmingham Sessions to three years in a Borstal institution and six months' hard labour, respectively, for carrying off two farthings from a warehouse into which they had broken; and whether he will consider the desirability of reducing these sentences?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made inquiries and find that these two youths pleaded guilty to warehouse breaking. Each of them had been dealt with previously for other offences. Staff had already been in a Borstal institution from which he was on licence; he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. McDonald was on probation for an earlier offence, and he was unsatisfactorily reported on by the probation officer; he was sentenced to a period of Borstal detention. In view of all the facts, I can find no grounds for interference with either sentence.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD (FREE MARKET).

Major KINDERSLEY: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that uncertainty as to the Goverment's intentions with regard to the restoration of a free market in gold is having a disturbing effect upon trade, industry and finance; and whether he will make an early announcement on the subject?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to questions on this matter on Thursday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVERSION LOAN ISSUE.

PREMATURE DISCLOSURE ALLEGED.

Mr. LEES SMITH: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the intention of the Government to offer a further issue of 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan for the amount of £30,000,000, announced on Wednesday last at four o'clock, was publicly known on the Stock Exchange during the morning; and whether there is any explanation of this disclosure?

Mr. WALLHEAD: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the issue of £30,000,000 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan was prematurely divulged on the Stock Exchange; and whether he will institute an inquiry directed to the discovery of the source and method by which this information was divulged?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the premature disclosure of the terms of the offer of Conversion Loan announced on Wednesday afternon; and whether he will make any investigation into the circumstances?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information as to the manner in which the news of the 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan was divulged; and if he is prepared to take strong action to prevent such disclosures in the future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As soon as I heard of the suggestion that the new 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan issue had been disclosed before the public announcement at 10 minutes to four on Wednesday last, I asked Sir Warren Fisher, the head of the Civil Service, to make a full personal investigation on my behalf. Sir Warren informs me that after inquiry of all the persons directly concerned in the preparations for the issue, and of those in the market who would be directly affected, he is satisfied that no such disclosure in tact took place. I am also informed that the movement of prices, which was general, and not confined to Government stocks, was entirely explicable by the state of the market, and that sales on Wednesday were not abnormal.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause some inquiries to be made of the Committee of the Stock Exchange as to what losses were suffered by dealers in the Consol market owing to this suggestion?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The inquiries which Sir Warren Fisher made covered that sphere, but if the hon. Gentleman has any further information to give on the subject I shall make further inquiries.

Sir F. WISE: Who prints these prospectuses? Is it done by the Government Printing Department or are they printed outside?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Prospectuses are printed in the Bank of England and there is no suggestion that any leakage occurs there.

Captain GEE: In view of the fact that this knowledge was divulged, will the right hon. Gentleman have another searching inquiry, because it is proved that leakage takes place somewhere and we ought to know where?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The tenor of my answer was contrary to the assumption contained in the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it a proper course to pursue to introduce the name of a permanent civil servant in a controversy in this House when the responsibility is his own?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not in the least desire to avoid responsibility, but it seems to me a natural thing to ask Sir Warren Fisher, who is the head of the Treasury and also head of the Civil Service, and who happened not to be directly concerned with this particular transaction, to make inquiry of the Governor of the, Bank of England, the Government broker, and among jobbers in the Stock Exchange market concerned to ascertain whether anything abnormal or unusual had taken place, and I have given his report to the House. I take the fullest responsibility for anything which took place. If there are any other facts which are known to any other Member of the House, and they are brought to my notice, I will make further inquiry.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: What is the authority of the right hon. Gentleman for the entirely new precedent of introducing the name of a permanent civil servant as head of the Civil Service?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I have unwittingly trespassed into the field of constitutional precedent, I wish to enter at this stage all possible disclaimers, but the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury is responsible to the Prime Minister as First Lord of the Treasury, and only in a secondary degree is he responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the Second Lord of the Treasury.

Mr. L. SMITH: As this movement was not quite normal, and these stories have been circulated, does the right hon. Gentleman think that there was an absolute coincidence on that morning?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given all the information which has been in my possession. Of course, many people are interested in finding out what is going to take place in these matters. They make their living by doing so, and many rumours are current from time to time. I have given all the information that is at my disposal.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate any occasion during the last generation when there have been similar rumours accompanied by a similar movement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am unable to indicate everything that has taken place in a period covering so many years as the last generation without making some further inquiries than are open to me at present.

Mr. DALTON: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state approximately the saving in interest and the addition to the nominal value of the National Debt which are likely to result from the conversion of Treasury Bonds maturing on 1st May next into 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan, and the corresponding saving and addition to nominal value which would be likely to result if the conversion of these bonds were to be made into 4½per cent. Conversion Loan?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The offer of 3½ per cent. loan is by tender, and the result of the offer is not, of course, yet known. At the minimum price of 76¾ the saving of interest would be over £100,000 a year. The increase in the nominal amount of the National Debt would be a little under £7,000,000, but the new stock is virtually irredeemable. The second part of the question is purely hypothetical and depends on the price at which 4½ per cent. Conversion Loan could be issued. The annual saving would, however, certainly have been less and there was no question on the present occasion of issuing a stock which the Government are under an obligation to redeem in 19 years.

Mr. DALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the relative merits and demerits of making a conversion into 3½ and 4½ per cent. stock respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot pretend to be a great authority on this subject, but I took the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England and of the high officials at the Treasury, who have been for a long period concerned in those matters, and it seemed to me from the arguments put before me that the course which they recommended was a right one and a wise one, and, therefore, I accept full responsibility for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIVELISCOMBE COUNTY SCHOOL (NEW BUILDING).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the work of rebuilding the infants' department of the Wiveliscombe county school, destroyed by fire on 7th December, 1923, has not been commenced; and if he will make inquiries into the cause of the delay and take steps to have the work of reconstruction expedited?

Duchess of ATHOLL: There has been some delay owing to the necessity of deciding upon the future organisation of this school, but my right hon. Friend is expediting the consideration of the final plans of the new building which is to replace the existing temporary premises, and he has no reason to doubt that the authority will put the work in hand with all possible despatch.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAMP DUTY OFFICE (TELEGRAPH STREET, E.C.).

Sir F. WISE: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any complaints have been received as to the inadequacy of the arrangements which exist at the Inland Revenue Office at Telegraph Street, E.C., for the examination of documents for stamp duty purposes; whether he is aware that the congestion of work there causes the greatest inconvenience and delay to business houses in the City of London; and whether he will undertake immediate inquiries in the matter with a view to offering better facilities?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention had not been previously directed to the alleged inadequacy of the arrangements at this office. I will, however, cause inquiry to be made, and will communicate the results to my hon. Friend in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — DAWES REPORT (EXPENSES).

Sir F. WISE: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost of the staff, rent, etc., for the execution of the Dawes Report for the last three months?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The payments for the expenses of the Reparation Commission and on account of the cost of administration of the office of the Agent General for reparation payments during the last three months for which figures are available were as follow:

£


December, 1924
…
…
40,093


January, 1925
…
…
32,473


February, 1925
…
…
27,591





100,157

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PLAISTOW OMNIBUS SERVICE.

Mr. GROVES: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has received any protests against the present omnibus service, No. 511, operating from Stratford to Chingford, etc.; whether he proposes to sanction its extension to Barking Road, Plaistow; whether he has been informed that such extension would mean that the omnibuses would pass through Church Street, South West Ham, and High Street., Plaistow, which streets have been submitted by the council to the Ministry as restricted streets under Section 7 of the London Traffic Act on the ground of the existence of adequate facilities for the conveyance of passengers, the narrowness of the streets, and the density of the traffic, the width of Church Street South, being only 22 feet, 3 inches, and of High Street, Plaistow, 15 feet,. 6 inches; whether he is aware that the County Borough of West Ham views with considerable alarm the effect of any such increased traffic, which will unnecessarily compete with the present council tramways operating thereon; and whether, therefore, he will
refuse to sanction such operation of omnibus service?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): A protest against the proposed extension to Barking Road, Plaistow, of the existing omnibus service No. 511 has been received from the County Borough of West Ham. Responsibility for approving omnibus routes or extensions thereof rests with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who informs me that the application for the extension referred to is still under consideration. I am forwarding a copy of the hon. Member's question and of this reply to the Commissioner. The representations made by the County Borough of West Ham that Church Street, West Ham, and High Street, Plaistow, be declared "restricted streets," under Section 7 of the London Traffic Act, are under consideration, and I hope to be able to announce a decision in the matter very shortly.

WORKMEN'S TICKETS.

Mr. GROVES: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the fact that a large number of work-people are compelled to travel to the City long before the actual office hours owing to the fact that the railway and tramway companies do not issue work men's tickets at a sufficiently late hour to enable such workers to be really benefited; and whether he will either urge, or introduce legislation to compel such railway and tramway undertakings to issue workmen's tickets up to 8 a. m. instead of as at present 7.30 a.m.?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply, of which I am sending him a copy, to a somewhat similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for the Harrow Division on the 17th February last.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR SPIRIT AND BENZOL.

Mr. D. GR ENFELL (for Mr. GEORGE HALL): 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the total number of gallons of motor spirit, including benzol, used in the British Isles in 191:3 and 1924; and the total number of gallons of home-produced benzol used as motor spirit in 1913 and 1924, respectively?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Precise information as to the consumption of motor spirit, including benzol, cannot be furnished. From such particulars as are available, it may, however, be estimated that the consumption in 1913 was approximately 120,000,000 gallons and in 1924 approximately 500,000,000 gallons. The information available does not enable a similar comparison to be made of the consumption of home-produced benzol as motor spirit.

Oral Answers to Questions — STIRLINGSHIRE JUSTICES' ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. STEPHEN (for Mr. JOHNSTON): 55.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Stirlingshire Justices' advisory committee was reconstituted last October by having three additional members added; that two of these three added members were to represent the Labour interest and the women's interest, respectively; and that the members have now been notified that the committee is dissolved; and whether he will see that interests previously left out shall be adequately represented in any reconstructed committee?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): My right hon. Friend is informed that three additional appointments to the Stirlingshire Justices' Advisory Committee were made in October, 1924, but that no complete reconstruction of the committee has been undertaken since the original committee was appointed. The Lord Chancellor takes the view that it is desirable that advisory committees should be appointed for a fixed period of six years, one-half retiring at the end of every three years; and he has dissolved the old committee and proposes to appoint a new one upon the above terms. The members of the old committee have been informed that the committee has been dissolved. In appointing the new committee the Lord Chancellor will endeavour to see that all interests are adequately represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH PRISONERS.

Mr. L. SMITH: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether in view of the fact that one of the political prisoners sentenced in Northern Ireland and imprisoned in an English prison has applied for a writ of habeas
corpus in order that the legality of these imprisonments may be tested, and that a rule nisi was granted in his case by the Lord Chief Justice's Court this morning, the prisoners held under similar conditions in Scotland will be retained as at present until the legal issue has been decided?

The LORD ADVOCATE: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, who is in Scotland, I can say only that I will place the matter before him, and that doubtless he will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. SMITH: May I ask for an assurance that no action will be taken until an opportunity has been given to put the question to the Secretary for Scotland?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Of course, I am not in a position to give any such assurance. All that I can do is to communicate with my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I now put Question No. 57?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already had his ration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect, and in view of the fact that it is not yet 3.45, may I put the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already put three questions and nine supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.

Sir THOMAS ROBINSON reported from the Local Legislation Committee; That the parties opposing the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Archibald Tomlins, of 88, Darlington Street, Wolverhampton, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Archibald Tomlins do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.

Ordered, That Archibald Tomlins do attend the Local Legislation Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Former Enemy Aliens (Disabilities Removal) Bill and of the Charitable Trusts Bill); Mr. William Nicholson of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions Continuation) Bill); Mr. Samuel Roberts of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Fire Brigade Pensions Bill and the Statutory Gas Companies (Electricity Supply Powers) Bill); and Mr. Morgan Jones of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I have been considering how best to explain the provisions of this Bill from the Second Reading point of view, because the points which are likely to arise upon it are almost all points which will probably be more conveniently dealt with in Committee than on Second Reading. There is, indeed, no one principle that runs through the whole Bill, except the general principle of trying to make the administration of justice more efficient, a little cheaper, and a little quicker. The Bill is the successor of two previous Bills, one of which I introduced in 1923, when it passed the Second Reading, after it had passed all its stages in another place, and the second of which was introduced by my predecessor, again after it had passed all stages in another place. The 1924 Bill not only obtained a Second Reading in this House, but also passed the Committee stage.
Perhaps the most convenient course would be for me to indicate the more important provisions, and to call attention to one or two respects in which this Bill differs from its predecessors. I hope that when I have done that, it may be possible to secure general assent to the Second Reading. The first two Clauses are Clauses which deal with a difficulty that has long been felt with regard to work at Assizes. Assize trials were chosen a great many years ago, when the centres of population were very different from those of to-day. Consequently, very often there is very little business to be done at Assize towns. That involves a great waste of money, and, what is perhaps more serious, a great waste of judicial time and of the time of grand jurors, petty jurors, witnesses and the like. On the other hand, if one seek to abolish altogether the holding of Assizes in any given town, there is always a natural resentment in the old cities or towns to a change which may tend to deprive them of an ancient privilege.
Accordingly on the recommendations of a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Swift, which reported something over two years ago, provision is made in this Bill that no assize town shall be abolished, but where, with regard to any particular assize, it appears that on that particular occasion little substantial business is likely to be done, the Lord Chief Justice is to have power, for the purpose of that particular assize, to make arrangements for the business to be transacted elsewhere, with a consequent saving of time and expense. Similar provisions to this in the previous Bills were received with general approval, and I hope the same may be their fate this afternoon.
Clause a is changed considerably in form from the corresponding Clause in the two earlier Bills. It deals with the right to trial by jury. In the 1923 Bill provisions were made fixing by Statute certain rules of trial by jury, and it was hoped that these would do away with the objections to the existing and somewhat vague provisions of the Act of 1920, which had been subject to judicial criticism. On the Second Reading of the 1923 Bill it was the provisions with regard to trial by jury which were most attacked, largely from the Liberal Benches. In 1924 the same provisions were introduced, but my predecessor assured the House that he would take steps during the Committee stage to restore trial by jury to a position exactly the same as that which prevailed before the War. Accordingly, an Amendment was moved in Committee, I think by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) which was accepted on all sides as fulfilling that pledge, and was substituted for the original Clause. We have thought it right to accept what was obviously a general view in the last two Parliaments, and in the present Clause we have reproduced the Amendment which was accepted in Committee in 1924 and which—I think admittedly—exactly restores the position existing before the War. Clauses 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 deal mainly with the qualifications for and the tenure of certain offices in the High Courts, and I do not think there is anything in them regarding which I need take up time on the present occasion.
I have to call attention to Clause 5, because it represents a new provision not to be found in either of the, earlier Bills.
This provision deals firstly with the appointment of an additional Judge to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. The House may know that under the Judicature Act, 1873, the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division was constituted of two Judges, the President and one other, and that number has remained unaltered ever since, although both the other divisions have increased in numbers, and although the work of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division has largely increased. At the beginning of this year a deputation came to see my right hon. and Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and myself. That deputation, which was representative of most of the big commercial interests in the City, urged the appointment of an additional Judge to this division, on the grounds that the work was too much for the two Judges, and that in Admiralty work, above all ether, it was important for the commercial community to have a certainty of date of trial and no undue delay. The House will realise that in Admiralty matters one must largely depend on witnesses who are seafaring men, and the expense and inconvenience of keeping such men waiting a very long time for a case is a great handicap to litigants.
There is also the fact, of which I think we have the right to be proud, that the Admiralty Court enjoys an international reputation as a Court to which foreigners can safely resort, with the assurance that they will get a fair trial and absolute justice. The use of that Court in Admiralty matters, in which, of course, foreign citizens are often concerned, is considerably handicapped if the foreigner feels that, however just the decision may be, it is quite uncertain how long it will take to obtain it, and if he also feels that the expense of obtaining it may be almost prohibitive. The case which was made out—to the satisfaction, I think, of all who heard the deputation—was a case for the creation of one additional Judge in that division, so that there might be some reasonable hope of Admiralty cases being tried by a Judge familiar with Admiralty work within a reasonable time and on a fairly definite date. In Clause 5 we are taking power to appoint that Judge, and the fact that such a provision is in this
Bill is one reason why I am very anxious, should the House see fit, that we should get this Bill passed into law as soon as reasonably may be.
In addition to taking that power, there is one minor alteration which we are making part of the same Clause with regard to the Judges of the King's Bench. As the House knows there are in the King's Bench Division the Lord Chief Justice and 15 puisne Judges, and in 1910 provision was made by this House for the appointment of two additional Judges whose places should not be filled upon a vacancy arising except by an Address from both Houses of Parliament. That prevents any permanent increase in the strength of the King's Bench, and retains in the hands of Parliament control over the matter to that extent. No provision was made at that time to deal with the position created if, immediately after an appointment, a fresh vacancy occurred. The last time a. Resolution was passed by this House was in December last, when I had the privilege of moving it. Supposing, unhappily, immediately after we had appointed two Judges in accordance with the wish of the House there had been created, by death or resignation, a fresh vacancy, it would have been necessary to come back to the House, and ask Members to pass all over again the Resolution to which they had just assented. We are proposing that a Resolution of this kind shall hold good for 12 months. It can hardly be supposed that large arrears of work, calling for the appointment of additional Judges, can be got rid of in a shorter time than 12 months. We are not asking the House to increase permanently the strength of the King's Bench, or to stereotype the appointment of the two extra Judges, but we are asking that where a Resolution has been passed, stating that the House is satisfied that two extra Judges are needed, that Resolution shall hold good for 12 months, so as to enable the two extra Judges to be retained at least during that period. This is a reform which, I hope, will meet with general approval.
I pass to Clauses 11, 12 and 13, which are designed to render more efficient the control of the Treasury over the accountancy department of the Supreme Court. Clauses 11 and 12 were in the earlier Bills. Clause 13 has been inserted
in this Bill at the desire of the Treasury, and the object is to modernise and render more efficient the auditing of the accounts of the High Court. In Clauses 10, 14, 15, and 16 Regulations are made for the more efficient transaction of business in the Supreme Court. Provisions as to the rules of Court are brought together into one section, provision is made as to the transfer of business from one division to the other, and matters of that kind are dealt with—matters really of detail in the management of our own affairs.
Clause 17 in its present form is a new Clause. It is the outcome of a Committee which was presided over by Mr. Justice Tomlin, and it deals with and reorganises the position of district probate registries. The district probate registries in this country were set up by the Probate Act, 1857, which set up some 40, I think, in all, at what were then regarded as the important places for the transaction of business, and to each was assigned a particular district, so that people living in that district had the option either of proving their wills at the Central Probate Registry at Somerset House or in the district in which they resided. If any business was contentious, that had at once to come up to Somerset House—any points of difficulty had to be referred there—but ordinary uncontentious probate business could be dealt with, if the people concerned so desired, at the district probate registries. Centres of population have changed a good deal in 70 or 80 years, and there have been, on at least two occasions, reports made recommending that changes should take place. As a result of those reports, a Committee was set up, presided over by Mr. Justice Tomlin, which inquired into the whole position, and made certain recommendations in 1923, which were printed in the form of a Command Paper in that year, and Clause 17 is designed to give effect to those recommendations.
In its original form in the 1924 Bill, the Clause provided merely that the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division should have power to change district probate registries, to abolish some, and to keep others. The Committee last year took the view that that was too wide a power to entrust to the Lord Chancellor, that it was better that Parliament itself
should name the particular registries which were to be abolished or established, and that power should also be given to the Lord Chancellor and the President hereafter to make changes, provided always that these should be subject to the control of Parliament by Regulations which had to be laid on the Table of the House. Accordingly, my hon. and learned predecessor undertook, in the Committee stage last time, that he would introduce a Clause which, instead of giving that power, should name exactly what changes should take place. The Clause as it now stands is the one he had set down for the Report stage of the Bill last time, and which carried out the pledge which he then gave. The effect of the labours of Mr. Justice Tomlin's Committee is that a certain number, 11, I think, of registries are abolished, 10 others are made into sub-registries, four new registries are established at places which have grown much since 1857, places like Sheffield and the like, and the registries are grouped together.
A second recommendation, to which effect is given by Clause 18 of the Bill, is that the territorial limits of the District Probate Registries are done away with, so that anybody can prove a will at any District Probate Registry which may be convenient to themselves. That was a recommendation which we made before, and which was repeated emphatically in the 1923 Committee Report. I hope the result of this change will be two-fold: First of all, it will effect a substantial saving, because at present many of these District Probate Registries have very little to do, and a staff is kept there for seven hours out of eight doing nothing. Figures have been worked out, which I could give if necessary to the House, showing the extreme extravagance and waste of time which the present system involves. Secondly, it enables us, while making these economies, at the same time to raise the salaries of the clerks who are to be employed, and to give them the benefit of a pension scheme. One of the necessary results of the staffs being under-worked and having very little to do, and of the Registrars equally being under-worked, was that, unhappily, in many Probate Registries to-day the staffs are not getting a reasonable living wage, and there is no provision at all for any pension upon their retirement. We hope by
this re-organisation to ensure that the wages shall be substantially increased, that a pension scheme shall be created which will cover all of them, and, at the same time, that an economy in the total expense will be achieved.
Some three Clauses deal with County Courts. Clause 19 is a Clause in regard to trial by jury in the County Court, which amends the somewhat unsatisfactory provisions of the 1920 Act. Clause 20 is a Clause which deals with the recovery of debts in the High Court, and questions of costs, which, however important to litigants, are not matters that I will spend time in discussing now. Clause 21 gives effect to a recommendation of another Committee, appointed by my Noble Friend, and presided over by Mr. Justice Branson, to render less expensive and more expeditious the dealing with money recovered in the High Court by infants. Then there come a number of miscellaneous Clauses with regard to the registration of deeds of arrangement, Clauses with regard to the names in which an administration bond is to be taken, which gets over a difficulty that has arisen in practice owing to the fact that an administration bond is given in the name of His Majesty, and you have to go to the Attorney-General, which is an undesirable and a clumsy method of procedure. Clause 25 is a Clause which I am going to ask the Committee to omit. It was an arrangement arrived at between the English and Scottish judicial authorities, but it appears to be based on some misapprehension, and I am not going to ask the House to give that Clause the effect of law.
Clause 27 is a new Clause which is designed to save the expense and trouble involved when formal deeds are required to be produced in various parts of the country. At present an official has to be sent down, at considerable expense, to produce the deed in person under a subpoena. Provision is here made that rules may be made under which a document may be sent to the Courts, without an official having to go down on every occasion. Clause 28 provides for the repeal of certain enactments which have become entirely obsolete owing to our change of practice, but which have not yet formally ceased to be the law of the land, and which, therefore, require
repeal in order to enable the Consolidation Bill that is now being considered to take effect. Clauses 29 and 30 are the usual formal Clauses, and that completes, I think, a brief summary of a number of not very ambitious, but I hope useful provisions, which, if they are carried into effect, will, as we believe, and as I think my predecessor believed, do something to render the administration of justice in this country a little quicker, a little more efficient, and, I hope, a little cheaper too.

4.0 P.M.

Sir PATRICK HASTINGS: In the very few observations which I have to offer, I desire to make it quite plain that I am not opposing any of the provisions of this Bill, and I think the party to which I belong is of the same opinion. Indeed, there is only one Clause in the Bill on which I want to say a word at this moment, although in Committee there may be one or two suggestions to put forward. The Clause on which I desire to offer a few comments is that referring to juries. That Clause has a very curious history. In the 1923 Bill it passed through another place in the form in which it was then drafted; and, in spite of considerable criticism coming from these benches, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir D. Hogg) who has now introduced this Bill was then, I think, prepared to adhere to the view which was then generally taken. Shortly speaking, that view was that it had one advantage over the present Clause in that whatever right it gave to a jury, it gave as a statutory right. That certainly was an advantage. On the other hand, it had what in my view was a grave disadvantage. It limited the rights to a jury as they had previously existed, not by Statute, but under the practice of the Courts.
That Bill never came into law owing to the change of events, and last year it became my duty to introduce a Bill practically in terms similar to that which had been introduced in 1923. That Bill equally passed through its course in another place, and it came down here very much, if not exactly, in the same form as in 1923. In introducing it, I told the House, before any criticism had been voiced at all, that it was my intention, in Committee, myself to move to amend that Clause. The object which I hoped to achieve was twofold: in the first place, to maintain the statutory right to a jury,
and, in the second place, to put the position of the litigant regarding a jury in at least as good a position as he had held under the old Rules of Court in 1918. Some criticism came from hon. Members opposite upon the way in which the Bill had been introduced, but I think I may say that from all parts of the House I received assistance with the object of achieving that dual result. It was somewhat curious that the present Solicitor-General (Sir T. Inskip), while, I think, being most anxious, and indeed most enthusiastically anxious, to assist in the passing of the 1924 Bill, urged me to adhere stoutly to the principles of that Bill and not to go back to any 1918 practice.
However, an effort was made to arrive, if possible, at that dual result. But it was not easy; in fact, it was extremely difficult. I am sure I am only stating what is known to everybody who was in the last Parliament when I say that we were not our own masters. Everything that we introduced had of necessity to pass with the approval of other Members of the House, and, in the end, I was driven to accept the Amendment which is incorporated in the present Bill, and which merely puts the position of the litigant back to that which it was in 1918. I am not speaking in any way disrespectful of my hon. Friend who introduced that Amendment, though I know he will think I am, when I say that it was a cowardly Amendment. It gave us half that which we sought to achieve. It put us back into the same position as we were in 1918, but it gave us no statutory protection at all. I am not saying that it is an easy thing to do, but I do hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now in charge of the Bill will consider whether it is not possible even now, in Committee, because he will not, I assured him, be subject to the criticism to which I was subjected from hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House as to why he introduces a Bill without being quite definite as to what he wants. He will receive every sort of assistance, not only from me, but from all of us. There was a desire all through the House last year, not only that we should go back to the condition of affairs in 1918, but, if possible, that there should be some statutory protection with regard to juries, because, as the right hon. and
learned Gentleman knows quite well, there is at the moment practically none. It is open to the Rules Committee at any time so to affect the matter as to put back into the Rules of the Court precisely the same provision of which undoubtedly the whole House disapproved in 1924, when they considered this very important question.
I do not want it to be thought that I am speaking in a spirit of cavilling criticism, because I am open at once to the obvious answer, "Why did not you produce a better Clause in Committee." My answer is that it is an extremely difficult thing to do, though there are some words which might do it. There might he introduced a proviso which would prevent the Rules Committee interfering with the existing powers, and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend, if it is introduced, will not think that it is done in the least to secure any political advantage. It will be done merely as a Measure directed to the proper administration of justice. The only reason I rose was to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that., so far as I am concerned, I will support him, but I do hope that some such slight Amendment may be made. I feel confident that it will meet the views which were expressed last year, namely, (hat the right to a jury should be at least as great as in 1918, and, if possible, should be protected by some statutory provision.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I should like to say at the outset that I have no desire at all to hold up or delay some of the provisions contained in this Bill, but there are, I believe, some objections which may be fairly taken to the Measure, and I want in a very few sentences to refer to one or two of them. It may be said that they are Committee points, but I do not think that is quite so, because there are two things which illustrate a tendency in modern legislation, and it is a tendency which should not be allowed to pass without notice and, I believe, unchallenged. The ideal of the law reformers in the past has been to make the administration of justice as easily available as possible to-all classes in the community and in all parts of the country. It may be summed up in the
phrase "Bringing justice to the doors of the people." It was for that reason that the Assizes were instituted. Judges were sent to all parts of the country in order that litigants should have an opportunity of seeking justice in their own neighbourhood without being put to the expense of travelling far for that purpose. That idea has become a tradition until quite recent times, and it is because this Bill represents rather a breaking in that tradition that, among other reasons, I have put down the Amendment standing in my name.
There is no doubt that there has been a tendency in recent, years to depart from that ideal and tradition. A few years back a change was made in the Assizes, whereby in certain cases for one Assize during the year counties were grouped together, and one Assize was held for three counties instead of the Judge visiting each county in turn. The breaking away from that tradition is embodied in Clause I of this Bill. It is true that it does not abolish permanently any Assize town, but it gives to the Lord Chief Justice, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, power to dispense with the holding of Assizes at a particular time where, in the words of the Clause,
there is no business, or no substantial amount of business, to be transacted.
I can foresee that some difficulties may arise in regard to the interpretation of those words "no substantial amount of business." There are many comparatively small places where the amount of litigation is not very great. It seems to me rather unfortunate that you should penalise people who are law-abiding and peaceful by depriving them, when they do go to the Courts, of an opportunity of obtaining justice without any great expense. That Clause, it seems to me, does represent a departure from the ideal which law reformers have had in the past, of making access to the Courts as easy as possible to those by whom such access is desired.
The other Clause, which it seems to me represents a similar tendency, is Clause 17, which deals with the abolition of the district probate registries. I admit at once that the effect that this Clause would have upon certain district registries in Wales has caused me to give attention to this part of the Bill. Under this Bill the
only two district probate registries which exist for the whole of the counties in North Wales will be abolished. There are at the moment two, one at Bangor and one at St. Asaph. Under this Bill the registry at St. Asaph will be completely abolished, and Bangor will have what is called a sub-registry against the existing registry which has been there for many years. It may be said that there is very little ground for complaint, inasmuch as Bangor at any rate will have a sub-registry, but I find, on reading the Report of the Committee upon which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, this Clause is based, that what they mean by a sub-registry is that a clerk shall visit the town about once a week, but that the whole of the work shall be done at Chester, and that all the records which are at present at both Bangor and St. Asaph shall be removed to Chester. I understand this Committee heard no evidence at all from North Wales in regard to the position there, or in regard to the business which is done there, and I do think that the Clause and the Schedule, as they stand, show a lack of appreciation of the conditions which obtain in that part of the country.
I dare say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give me figures of the work which is done at Bangor which might indicate that that work is not of a very substantial amount, but I do not think that those figures would correctly represent the situation, for, as I am informed, a great part of the most valuable work which is done by the district registries is the opportunity which they give to those who either from interest or from duty have to concern themselves with wills of going to consult the probate registries in their own districts. A large part of the business which is done by the registries consists of personal interviews of that character. Under this Bill, it will be necessary for these people to travel all the way to Chester. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know the difficulties in the way of travelling in many parts of North Wales, and should it become necessary for the solicitors or the people concerned in a county like Merioneth or Glamorgan either to examine the Register or to consult the Registrar upon matters upon which their advice may be sought, it
would mean practically a day's journey either for the solicitors or the people themselves to travel to Chester.
I have also been asked to voice an objection which is taken by the University College of North Wales. It appears that the historical students of that College have been accustomed in the course of their research work to make use of the records which hitherto have existed at Bangor. They have asked me to voice their protest against the removal of such records to Chester, which will involve great expense and inconvenience to students who desire to consult them.
The other matter is a matter which affects the Welsh-speaking population. I am told that 80 per cent. of the interviews which have been taking place in Bangor registry for years past are conducted in the Welsh language. Bangor registry has served peculiarly Welsh counties like Anglesey, Carnarvonshire and Merionethshire, and there is no doubt that many people who desire to consult the registry on wills, and matters affecting wills, relating to very small estates, would be considerably hampered, unless they were sure of meeting there someone with whom they could converse in the language with which they are best acquainted, and the abolition of two registries in North Wales, and the moving of the records to Chester will, undoubtedly, cause considerable expense and inconvenience to people in that part of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, as indeed the Committee reported, that this change is recommended, in part, on the ground of economy. Personally, I doubt very much whether much economy will be effected by these changes. Even on the figures given in the Report, it does not come to a very large amount. Where economy is to be effected, I do really suggest that the administration of justice should be amongst the last, and not amongst the first, of the Departments in which that economy is to be made. Recourse to the Courts of Justice is one of the elementary rights of citizenship in this country, and it is not right that the State should make money out of the administration of justice.
I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question on the 16th March, as to the amount of fees which were taken, and as to the expense incurred by
the district probate registries and the principal probate registry, and it is clear from the figures which he was good enough to give me, that these district probate registries do pay for themselves—and handsomely pay for themselves—at the present time. It does, therefore, seem unfair that there should be a saving to the State at an inconvenience and a greater cost to the people who have recourse to those registries, which, I have already said, are not a burden upon the Imperial Exchequer: Therefore, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when the Bill goes to Committee, will be good enough to consider whether he cannot assent to some amendment of Clause 17 so as to ensure that these peculiarly Welsh counties in North Wales shall be served by a registry at Bangor, or some other convenient town, where the people who have occasion to utilise the registries can go, at less inconvenience and less expense than would be possible if this Clause were to be passed as it stands.

Mr. MORRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to urge upon the attention of the learned Attorney-General the arguments that have been used by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) for the retention of the registry office, particularly at Bangor. I think this Bill goes a good deal in the right direction in remedying the present state of affairs, a state of affairs which is, I think, on the whole, indefensible with regard to the expenditure of public money on the present circuit system, and I speak, of course, particularly of the South Wales and the Welsh circuits generally. Last January, Mr. Justice MacKinnon, in addressing the Grand Jury at Brecon, made a very striking speech, in which he outlined the time spent by him upon that circuit since the beginning of January. He said:
During his experience of the last fortnight, one aspect of it had impressed itself upon him very forcibly, and that was the appalling waste of judicial time that was involved in the working of the system as at present. Since he left London for Haverfordwest, a fortnight ago, he had been occupied in Court for 16 hours, whereas if he had remained in London he world have been occupied during the same period in Court for 55 hours, that was to say, 11 working days in London, as against three on circuit.
There was one other aspect of the system which impressed him. The Assizes at
Haverfordwest, Lam peter, Carmarthen, and Brecon were now, so far as gaol delivery went, part of the delivery of the gaol at Swansea. He was well aware, and perfectly appreciated the advantage, of holding Assizes at each county town. He was fully cognisant of and appreciated the advantage of the administration of justice being brought home to the dwellers in each town, and he had observed at each of the Assizes at which lie had been there had been a very large attendance of interested spectators. But he was driven to the conclusion that that advantage, great as it no doubt was, did not outweigh the immense waste of judicial time which was involved, particularly when he knew that when he got back to London he should find himself probably trying civil cases that had been delayed, for many months, possibly even for a year, owing to the great arrears of business, a good deal due to the loss of judicial energy on circuit.
He went on to say that, of course, he was not making this protest for any selfish motive:
Personally, such a change as he had advocated was wholly altruistic; it was exceedingly pleasant for the Judge of Assize to have idle days in that beautiful county, particularly if it enabled him to enjoy the bounteous and warm-hearted hospitality he met with there; but, after all, this was term time, and he was supposed to be at work and not on vocation, and greatly as he enjoyed the many pleasures of idle days on circuit, he felt that he ought to be at work, and that he ought to be denied those pleasures.
That is the position at the present time. A good number of these circuit towns have little or no work, and, in so far as Clause 1 of this Bill makes some attempt, if, indeed, it does make any attempt, at remedying that situation, it is welcome. But my objection to this Clause is, that it does not go anything so far as it should go, particularly with regard to the circuit system in Wales at present. The Clause says that the Lord Chief Justice shall make an order where there "is no business, or no substantial amount of
business." What is to be the interpretation placed on the words "no substantial business"? Does that mean that where there is one case, the Lord Chief Justice shall say there is no substantial business, and it can stand over to the next assizes, or be transferred to some neighbouring assizes or does it mean, if there is one case, and that is regarded as sufficiently important, there should be an assize held at that particular town?
The Clause, to my mind, is uncertain as to its exact meaning, or its exact effect. Will the Lord Chief Justice direct that
this case shall be transferred to a neighbouring assize, and, if so, to which assize is it going to be transferred? Take, for instance, a civil action to be tried at Dolgelly. First, it is entered there. It is not certain whether the assize will be held there when the case is entered. There is not sufficient business to justify the holding of the assize at Dolgelly, and the Lord Chief Justice directs that it shall be held at Ruthin. Assuming there is not sufficient business there, it will be open to have it transferred to Denbigh, so that the venue of the assize will be Uncertain. I suggest to the learned Attorney-General, that so far as Wales is concerned, it is a fitting opportunity to go a good deal further than this Clause goes, and that the opportunity should be taken to regroup the assize towns. As the learned Attorney-General said, the present assize towns had been selected, not because of any great merit in the assize towns themselves, but because they were convenient centres for travelling in other days, and, possibly, centres of population. It is an opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take the whole of the circuit system so far as Wales is concerned, regroup the towns, and avoid the uncertain element in this Bill, so that litigants will know exactly to what assize towns they are to go, and what costs they are expected to meet, instead of the uncertain element in this Bill, under which a litigant will not know where to take his witnesses, or the sum of money in which he is to be involved by way of costs. That disposes of the objection I have to Clause 1.
There is also Clause 7, to which I should like to call the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention. Clause 7 makes provision for the appointment of certain officers of the Supreme Court. At present there is one anomalous position where the appointment is not made in the regular way that Civil Service appointments are made—namely, the appointment of the Clerk of Assize. All the other appointments are made by the Lord Chancellor, and I would urge upon the Attorney-General that he should include among these appointments the Clerk of Assize, who, at present, is appointed by the exercise of the patronage of His Majesty's Judges. I certainly do not for one moment suggest that that patronage is being improperly exercised. At the same time, it is too late in the day to
keep up this old-time method of making the appointments. All these appointments should be made in the same way, and made at the instance of the Lord Chancellor.
With regard to what has been said about Clause 17, I would reinforce the arguments so ably put forward by the hon. Member for the University of Wales, that this registry, particularly from the point of view of the University College in North Wales, should be retained at Bangor, and retained for the public convenience. The argument that the administration of justice should, first and foremost, be maintained for the purpose of the convenience of the public, I hope the Attorney-General will bear in mind, and will bear it in mind with regard to the new grouping of assize towns, because what I desire to see, so far as Wales is particularly concerned, is the restoration, sooner or later—and, I hope, sooner—of something analagous to the Court of Great Session, and here is an opportunity of regrouping assize towns in such a way as to form a new High Court for Wales.

Mr. ATKINSON: This Bill contains so much that is good that it is difficult to see how anybody can be asked to vote against it. But there are two or three matters which seem to me, though, probably, they can be better dealt with in Committee, to be suitable for discussion at this moment. With reference to the objections taken by the Mover of the Amendment on Clause 1, I venture to think that those objections can be easily met if the rule as to the time at which an action has to be entered goes back to what it was before 1919. Before 1919 a case had to be entered not less than 21 days before commission day. For some reason or other. I do not know why, that was altered in 1919 to seven days. In the case of the big towns it was always seven days, but for everywhere else it was 21 days. One can quite see that with the time cut down to seven days there might be great inconvenience in practice. A case is entered for trial. Until the beginning of that seven days nobody knows whether there is going to be sufficient work to justify the sending of a Judge down to that particular circuit town. I suppose that several days would pass before a decision could be
made, and, possibly, everybody would not be notified of any change. A jury might have to be, or have been, summoned; and it might very well be that a change would have to be made nearly at the last moment, and great inconvenience caused. If you reverted to the old rule of 21 days there would be ample time in which to deal with this matter, and to wait, really, until the position was known as to the whole of the circuit, so that there would be no reason for the transfer of a case from one assize town to another assize town, and then again to still another. Such a procedure would simplify the working very much.
As to the question raised by the late Attorney-General (Sir P. Hastings) on Clause 3, I think that the House ought to know exactly what it is being asked to do. The position before 1918 was this: that in every civil case every litigant had, to all intents and purposes, the right to a jury if he desired. In certain cases the litigant gave notice that he wanted a jury, and in other cases he applied for a jury, and he was entitled to it. What was the result in practice? I am speaking with 30 years' experience. In certain cases in business centres this aspect of the case was appreciated—there might be a mass of correspondence. Counsel was asked: "Shall we or shall we not have a jury here?" If you had a good case you replied, "Certainly not." If you had a bad case you applied for a jury, as your only chance of success. The House knows that in some of these cases there are many hundreds of letters which it is quite impossible adequately to put before a jury, and in practice cases of that sort are tried with a jury because it was the only chance of winning a had case. The position at present under the 1920 Act is this: that in cases of fraud, libel, slander, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, seduction, or breach of promise the party has a right to a jury. In other cases he has the same right, unless the Judge is satisfied that the case can be more conveniently tried by the Judge alone.
For my own part that rule seems adequate. I did not know there had been any criticism upon it. It has certainly worked admirably in practice. The party has a right to a jury—and the burden is on the other side—unless the Judge is satisfied that the case could be more con-
veniently dealt with, and more fairly tried, by a Judge alone. I should be exceedingly sorry to see any variation in that rule. One recognises, perhaps, that it is not a matter for lawyers, but more for the public, who are entitled to have their own way. The cases are theirs. It may very well be that our advice is different, for we speak with more experience of the result as to what is best for the public. Still, it may very well be that it is not a matter for us, but for them. To make this position statutory, however, would not, in my humble opinion, be helpful. At any rate if the intention is to restore the position as it was it will be open in Committee to vary it in cases where a real injustice may seem to be done, or where further experience has shown it to be necessary. If you have that position made permanent by Statute it will only be able to be altered by Statute, and in my humble opinion the position would be wholly deplorable and do a great deal of injustice. It is really a question of justice or injustice and the best way of getting a just decision. That is the great essential. Still there is a question of time to be considered as well. Cases are tried in less than half the time by a Judge alone than by a Judge and jury. In certain busy centres there are sometimes a great number of cases which are disposed of adequately by the Judge alone, where, if there were juries sitting as well with the Judge, the time spent on circuit by the Judges would be twice or three times ac much.
The next point to which I wish to refer is that mentioned by an hon. Member—as to Probate Registrars. The only complaint I wish to make—it is not a point that I pretend to understand very much about, it has been represented to me—is on behalf of the registrars who will lose their posts. They are in a very serious position in reference to the Superannuation Acts. Apparently, their view is—I do riot know whether it is right or wrong, but I would ask the Attorney-General to be good enough to consider it—their view, apparently, is that while many of them had to give up their practice at the Bar or their solicitor's work as a condition of obtaining appointment, yet as they took office without the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners, they are not deemed to have served in the permanent
Civil Service for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts. They are extremely nervous as to the result of that. They are obviously going to lose their posts, and they see that their right to superannuation is jeopardised because there is no provision in the Act dealing with them in any way at all.
There is one other criticism I venture to make. That is in reference to Clause 19, which deals with trial by jury in County Courts. If there is to be an increase of the employment of juries in County Courts, the County Courts will cease to work efficiently. You go to a County Court, and you see a long list of smell cases. It is essential, and essential in the interest of the parties concerned, that their cases should be dealt with on that day, and that they should not have to come back a second or a third time to the Court. If there are going to be juries summoned for the trial of these cases, the work of the County Court will take twice or three times as long. I venture to think that in the busier Courts the practice will be unworkable. As a whole I think that justice is administered well in the County Courts. It may be that sometimes one disagrees with the view taken, but if juries were employed I think we would disagree with the result a hundred times for every once we disagree with the-judgment of the Judge alone. The question of time is so important in the administration of justice in County Courts that the Government should hesitate long before they insert or pass a provision giving a right to increase the use of juries in such Courts.

Mr. HARNEY: I have little criticism to pass upon this Measure. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that a couple of years ago I took objection to the Bill brought forward then, and suggested that we should go back to the pre-War jury system. When the next Bill was introduced there was very little change made, and the same objection was taken. On that occasion an hon. Friend on the other side and myself were responsible for, drafting an Amendment which practically is now embodied in Clause 3. Before the 1918 Act, and ever since the Judicature Act was passed, it was always left to the Rules Committee as to whether a jury should be summoned or not. As a matter of fact, the rules which they laid down
worked extremely well and gave satisfaction. The Act of 1918 made this big change, that it made the right of juries, not by virtue of rules made by the Rules Committee, but according to Statute. At the same time, owing to the War, it greatly limited that right.
The 1924 Bill adopted the same method, but slightly extended the right to a jury. The Bills of 1923 and 1924 purported to extend the rights to the full degree that they were enjoyed before 1918. It was pointed out that they did not succeed in doing so. There is a great difference in embodying in an Act of Parliament a complete and watertight code as to whether or not and when a jury should be employed and otherwise. It is far better that it should be left, as it was, to the Rules Committee composed of men of a legal mind, who understand what they are doing, and can always adjust themselves to particular exigencies all over the country. Therefore I entirely approve of that. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) does not take the same view of juries that I take. He thinks they are a nuisance, that they are nearly always wrong, and that they lake up time. I hope he will not be startled when I say that my experience is of a different kind. The result is that in every case where I see that the Judge takes one view and the jury take another I find that-the jury's is the safer and saner view. Judges, after all, however learned and skilful they may be, are subject to prejudices like the rest of us. It is far better that litigants should have their questions of fact decided not by a single man, subject to idiosyncrasies, but by the opinion, the corporate opinion, that emerges from 12 minds of different kinds; only in that Way, indeed, can the Courts try to do the best in the circumstances and see that fair play is dealt out. After all, we may discuss justice as much as we like, but there is no such thing as abstract justice in the long run.
There are one or, two new Clauses in this Bill of which I also approve, one being that for the appointment of a new Judge. Anyone who is conversant with the state of business in the Law Courts can only regard its continuance as a denial of justice. My hon. Friend the Member for the Welsh Universities (Mr. E. Evans) moved the rejection of the Bill
on the ground that, in order to get more work out of the Judges, a provision was put in whereby the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, consulting together, could cut off a certain circuit on a particular occasion if business were light. He said that justice ought to be brought to the homes of the people. So it ought, and I would be very glad indeed to see a sufficient number of Judges appointed to enable the circuits to be kept up as they are now. Mr. Justice MacKinnon was perfectly right when he said, speaking of the circuit system, that going on circuit meant he could give only some 16 hours of work, whereas if he had remained in London he could have put in 54 hours.
There is another modification in the old Bill, and that is with reference to what I may call the extra Judges. In 1910 there were great arrears of work, and an Act was passed for the appointment of two additional Judges, but the Attorney-General of that time, bowing, I suppose, to the prevailing prejudice against appointing more Judges, instead of introducing a Bill to increase the number permanently from 15 to 17, decided to secure the appointment of two additional Judges with the provision that if one of them passed off the Bench there should be no reappointment except on an Address from the two Houses of Parliament. That might result in very great inconvenience, because if, after an Address from both Houses, a Judge had been appointed, and then in another month another vacancy occurred, there would have to be another Address from bath Houses of Parliament. My right hon. Friend has dealt with that very properly by saying that if the condition of things is such that it is desirable, after there has been an Address from both Houses, to appoint an additional Judge, then it is right to presume that that condition of things will exist for 12 months, and the one Address will cover a succession of Judges during that period.
There is only one other point I have to make, and that is with reference to the circuit system. I dare say this could be done in Committee, but I think the Bill ought to make more exact provision for dealing with what the Attorney-General has in mind. Before the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice can make up their minds as to whether
the amount of work in a particular Assize Court warrants the sending down of a Judge there must be time for notice to be given. There should be a longer period than seven days' notice. If the old period of 21 days were introduced there would be ample opportunity for seeing what the state of business was and how the situation should be dealt with. On the whole I think the Bill is a very excellent one, and I congratulate the Attorney-General upon the honest attempt he has made in Clause 3 to meet objections that came not from his own side of the House, but from the Labour Benches and these benches, with reference to the jury question.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not for one moment oppose this Bill, but I should like to call the attention of the House to three points. The first is the Clause which gives power to the Lord Chief Justice, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, to say, if there is not a substantial amount of business for a particular circuit court, that the assize shall not be held there. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to reconsider this decision. I am not going into the Debate which has arisen as to whether it is advisable or not to abolish circuits entirely. I think the talk about the waste of judicial time is grossly exaggerated, and that it is very desirable to send a Judge to each assize town, speaking quite broadly. That question does not arise, however, under the particular power which is to be conferred by this Bill by a provision which, I venture to think, will be unworkable. The Bill says that, after the assizes have been fixed, and after the Judge of assizes has been appointed to go to a town that, at some time which is not fixed in the Bill, if it appear to the Lord Chief Justice that there is no substantial amount of business he is to issue an order directing that the assizes are not to be held.
The vagueness of the expression "a substantial amount of business" is one to which I object to. If there is no business at all at the assizes, there is already power to say that the assizes shall not be held; but this is a new power, to come into operation if there is no substantial amount of business. Even if the seven days' notice of the entry of civil causes were extended to 21 days, that 21 days would be a very long time beforehand to
declare there was not a substantial amount of business, because criminal cases are constantly coming along, and criminal work has to be taken into account as well as civil work. I submit that this is a very doubtful power to give, that it would rarely be exercised, and that the saving of judicial time would really be exceedingly small by the infrequent exercise of this entirely new and somewhat arbitrary power. As far as I know, nothing is said in the Bill as to what is to happen to cases which have been set down for trial if it is decided not to hold the assizes. Assume, if you like, that a couple of prisoners had been committed for trial at the assizes at Huntingdon—a town which has been the subject of other references—and that there is no civil work, and that the Lord Chief Justice decides that there is not a substantial amount of business to justify a Judge visiting a town. What becomes of those two prisoners? Nothing is said about it in the Bill. Are they to stay there, possibly not on bail, for another four or five months till the time of the next assizes? Or supposing there is a civil case set down at Huntingdon. What becomes of the civil case if the assizes are not held? Is that to remain over to the next assizes, unless the people consent to go elsewhere? Or in the case of those towns with unpronounceable Welsh names that were referred to by the hon. Member for the Welsh University. Are prisoners at those towns to be taken from one county to another? Surely it would be a very undesirable thing to remove prisoners in that way. That is a point which, I venture to hope, may be reconsidered. As I said before, though there are objections to this power, I think it is a power that will be very rarely exercised, and that the saving of judicial time in the few cases where there is some business, but not a substantial amount of business, will be very slight indeed.
Another point to which I wish to refer is the power to appoint a new Judge in the Probate, Admiralty and Divorce Division to deal with Admiralty work. Two of my hon. and learned Friends who have spoken have had long experience of the subject, but I frankly say that I have never practised in the Admiralty Court in my life, and have no experience of that particular branch of the law, but I believe the case is a thoroughly good one
and that Admiralty work does need a new Judge. Now that we are going to make this appointment, surely it is time to put an end to the anomaly which exists at the present moment, an anomaly so absurd that I have never heard it justified in any place where two or three persons are gathered together. I do not know any member of the Bar who practises both in the Admiralty Court and in the Divorce Court. Those who practise in the Admiralty Court may occasionally have briefs in the common law Courts, but I know no advocate who habitually practises in the Admiralty Court and the Divorce Court. The Judge you appoint may be a first-rate Judge as an Admiralty Judge—the very man, one who can inspire that international confidence which has been referred to in connection with the work of the Admiralty Court—but he would be absolutely without any experience of divorce work, which is, of course, more like common law work. On the other hand, if you appoint as Judge one who is well qualified to do divorce work and has had experience of the common law, can he inspire the same international confidence as would one who had practised in the Admiralty Court? I think care should be taken now that we are appointing a new Judge to remove that anomaly, and to see that the Judge who is appointed as an Admiralty Judge should do Admiralty work, and Admiralty work alone; and if that is not sufficient to occupy his time it is better that he should do common law work rather than work in any other part of that particular Division.
5.0 P. M.
The last point to which I wish to call attention is the power of dispensing with juries in County Courts. A great deal has been said by the ex-Attorney-General of the desirability of having juries in the High Court, and I wish to say a word about the County Courts, where there has always been the power to have juries. If juries are a bad thing, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) has said, then abolish them altogether, though I should oppose that very strongly. If there is congestion in the County Courts, Courts should sit more days in the month. I do not fancy the vast majority of County Courts sit more than 14 days in the month, probably, and they could probably sit extra days to try jury cases.
At present we have not abolished trial by jury- from the County Courts, and I think the Bill is giving a very great power to County Court Judges to deny that right to litigants. One side may want a jury or perhaps both sides may want a jury, and yet the Judge is to have power to say, of his own motion, that there shall be no jury. I remember when I used to practise in the County Courts that some County Court Judges had very strong views against juries, and did everything they possibly could to prevent litigants having juries, such as putting their cases at the end of the list, in order to cause the greatest possible inconvenience. I think everybody felt that was wrong. Litigants are entitled, if they wish it, to have a jury to try their case. After all, a Judge is human, and he may have very strong views one way or the other, and a litigant may wish to have the view of the jury rather than that of the Judge. Also, I think, the House should remember that what has been said about the opinion of the jury and about the opinion of the Judge is not the only thing to be considered. In a trial by jury the Judge has to explain the case to the jury, and if the Judge is inclined to say hastily at first that he knows all about the case, when he comes to address the jury it is a tremendous advantage to him to have really to think the case out and put it in simple language, for very often it leads to his changing his original view. There is a great advantage in having the somewhat slower trial before a jury, and if the parties wish to have it and pay for it, I do not think it is wise to take away that right. I have detained the House with the three points, but I hope my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General will see his way to meet some of the three points I have raised.

Question, "That the word 'now" stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The origin of this Bill is rather quaint. The year before last, when I had the honour of being Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, it was brought home to me very forcibly that these new roads which had been constructed, and were being constructed in the vicinity of the Metropolis, however excellent they might be from the transportation point of view and however useful from the national aspect are extremely ugly. I think the House will agree with me that a great wide stretch of road surface, in most parts bounded by concrete posts bound together by iron wires, is not a very graceful or grateful addition to the landscape. So I went into the matter rather fully, and came to the conclusion that, if proper trees be planted alongside some of these great roads, it would, at any rate, in a few years take off the bareness of the aspect and replace many trees which had had to be cut down when these new roads were made.
In my preparation I included an estimate of £10,000 or £12,000 for capital expenditure: on planting trees. I consulted Kew, I consulted the Forestry Commission, and, indeed, had mapped out what sections of the roads and what particular trees should be planted. All went well until a vigilant officer in my Department discovered that I had no power to do anything of that sort, nor to apply any of the Road Fund to what I considered this very excellent purpose. The Minister could construct the road, drain the road, maintain the road from the Road Fund, but the one thing he could not do was to beautify the road in any way at all. I then promised to bring in a Bill to do away with what I considered the defects of the law, and while I was doing so it occurred to me that other things might be added. We were spending, and are spending, £42,000,000 every year in keeping up our roads, and I think the result is that we have better roads than any other country in the world; but neither the Ministry of Transport nor the local authority has power to spend money in experiments in order to see which form of road is the best, and what road surfaces ought to be used. I think it a very absurd and very uneconomic position to be in, to spend these huge sums of money every year, and yet not allowed to spend £10,000, £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000
in experiments by which we might probably save £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year. Therefore, I attached that provision to the Bill.
Owing to circumstances over which we had no control, another Government came into office and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling) became Minister of Transport. May I say we are, I am sure, very glad to see him back again with us after his absence owing to ill-health and I hope he will be able to say a word or two on the Bill this evening. Well, he, I think, agreed departmentally with his political adversary, and endorsed both the tree-planting and the experimental items, and he added one or two items of his own to which I agree, namely, to use money from the Road Fund in order to free the roads from tolls. At present local authorities can use money for freeing roads and bridges from tolls, but no money can be given from the Road Fund for that excellent purpose. There may be exceptional circumstances where tolls may be imposed for a limited number of years, but I submit that tolls should be done away with and that all bridges should be freed from toll. He also added power to use the Road Fund for putting milestones and sign posts and placing direction posts in various places.
That, I think, is all the Bill contains. It is a very small Bill, but I maintain quite seriously that in this Bill there may be the germ of considerable economies In the administration of our roads, and if for no other reason than that we are allowed to spend money upon experiments, I do, in my considered judgment—and I hope it is the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel—think we may save hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, ever year in the construction of new roads. I, therefore, submit we should give this important Measure a Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir E. Iliffe) has a Bill which he introduced which is printed and which seeks to do away with blind corners. Blind corners are extremely dangerous things. I need not stress that matter. I think if we can do away with them we ought to. To my mind this is a matter which should be done on a national basis. It should not be done on a basis of allowing local authorities to adopt this and that Clause in any
Local Government Bill. If the House thinks some means ought to be taken to do away with blind corners that ought to be done by the country as a whole, and we ought not to allow each local authority to take it or not as they think fit.
I am not sure that I agree with everything that is in the Bill of the hon. Member for Tamworth, in that he has made in that Bill no provision whatever for compensation. I think this House ought to hesitate very much before it inflicts very considerable loss on a person without compensation at all. Very often where two second- or third-class roads meet, there is a very good building site fur a public-house or petrol station or fur a shop, and to say, as it is said in my hon. Friend's Bill, that practically no house should be put up for a certain distance from the point of intersection of the two roads without any compensation goes further than this House has ever gone before, and further than I personally should like to go. But having said that, I would like the hon. Member to do me the honour of coming to talk with me in order to see if we could agree to some Clause which we might introduce in Committee, and if it then commends itself to a sense of fairness, I shall be glad to consider it favourably. I am sure we are anxious to do away with blind corners if at all possible.
There is only one other matter about which I have to say a word. I see that some hon. Friends of mine have put down a reasoned Amendment to this Bill in the following terms:
That this House, while approving of the power to conduct research and experiments on road construction and on the freeing of roads from tolls, cannot sanction expenditure on those objects out of the Road Fund until all rural roads upon which there is motor traffic receive a fairer proportion of the said fund.
I am not misrepresenting hon. Members who put that down, in saying that I think they do not object to the Bill as a Bill. That being so, I hope that they are not now going to use the speeches they have prepared for another occasion. But be that as it may, I make no complaint. It is quite right to put down this reasoned Amendment if they entertain very strong feelings about the money being allocated for the roads, and I welcome any discussion on that point under the Rules of
Order which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, lay down from the Chair. It is a little hard that I should be the Minister who should have to stand the fire of my hon. Friends. In 1923, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, in charge of that Department, I was the first person to make a proposition in regard to this matter. Having lived a good deal in the country, and having been a member of one of those local bodies, I know their needs, and I am fully aware of the very pressing burden that is now placed upon the local rates. That is the reason why I proposed grants amounting to £1,500,000 for the repair of rural roads used by such a large number of motorists.
I know it is very hard indeed in cases where the poor rural ratepayer has to find the money for the repair of these unclassified roads. As far as classified roads in rural areas are concerned they receive 50 per cent. for first-class roads and 25 per cent. for second-class roads. Therefore the only roads we have now to specially to consider are the unclassified roads. What the House ought to bear in mind is that the Road Fund is a national fund instituted for the purpose of maintaining and improving the main communications of this country. Above all, I hope my hon. Friends will bear in mind that the Fund was not instituted to relieve local rates, but in order to improve and maintain our main communications. Having said that, I am perfectly willing, if I find that I am able to do so, to help these rural roads in order to have them put in as good a state of repair as possible.
I would like to point out to those who are putting forward the Amendment to which I have referred that, roughly, for the last three years the total revenue of the Road Fund was £42,000,000, and before 1923 not one single penny was given to unclassified rural roads, but during the three years I have mentioned, the sum of £5,000,000, if what I hope to give this time is included, will have been devoted to rural roads, both classified and unclassified. I think if you have an entirely new service, and the income is £42,000,000, and I give £5,000,000 to unclassified rural roads, which do not bear the main stream of traffic in the country, I am not behaving ungenerously to the rural roads.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Was that sum given for the upkeep of rural roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: It was given for several purposes. One purpose was to enable a road which was a class one or a class two road to be put into such a state of repair that it could be mained through the county council system, would be taken over by them for maintenance from the rural district council, and then the charge for upkeep would be a county charge and not a charge on the rural district. This means a very considerable relief to the burden of that particular rural district area, because the country would bear the whole of the cost.
Another object in making these grants was to enable unclassified roads in the rural areas to be put into a proper state of repair. One condition was that such roads should be placed in a state of repair suitable to the motor traffic of to-day. For the local authorities simply to fill in the pits and mend the roads here and there was a sheer waste of money. This kind of expenditure has been a great burden on the local ratepayers, and there has been no advantage from it. Therefore, part of this £5,000,000 is to be spent in order that those roads, with the assistance of the local rates, may be put into a decent state of permanent repair.
For these reasons, I commend this little Bill to the House. I do so on the ground that we ought to try and do something to make the new roads an efficient means of transportation and as beautiful as possible. I am perfectly convinced that it is a good thing to spend a few thousand pounds a year in experiments, and if we do this I feel sure that in two or three years we shall possibly save millions of pounds in the upkeep of our roads. Those are the two main objects of this Bill, and I hope the few words I have said will ensure the passing of the Second Reading.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think this is a Bill which we shall all welcome. We shall probably press the right hon. Gentleman to get on with the work of tree planting a little more quickly. If the right hon. Gentleman carries out the principle of this Bill thoroughly, in regard to the planting of trees on the new roads, I hope he will also be able to carry
the same principle a little further, and plant trees along some of the old roads as well as these new arterial roads.

Colonel ASHLEY: Power is given under this Bill to the county councils to plant trees on the old roads on the land which is vested in them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope the local authorities will receive the same assistance for this purpose as the other authorities are receiving in the case of the new roads. I hope the Minister of Transport., when he comes to have the planting of these roads determined, will not merely have a row of trees planted at regular intervals, but will have some of them planted on the embankments, and in some places I would like to see the trees planted pretty thickly or in double lines, because this would lend enormously to the amenities of the roads, not only for traffic purposes, but also for the convenience of the people in those districts who would like to have access to open woods on the road sides. Those hon. Members who have travelled along the roads on the Continent will have observed that in many cases they have fruit trees on the roads which are open to all.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the fruit available for the public?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, abroad the fruit is available for the people, but anyone who has gone through Kent in the month of April or May will realise enormously the beauty which the fruit blossom adds to a tour in that county.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Or in Worcestershire.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Kent is better than Worcestershire in this respect, and it has the advantage of being near to our door. If we could extend this cultivation of trees over the countryside I think we should be conferring a great benefit on the whole of the community. With these few remarks I will now pass on to the question of spending money upon experiments, and I cannot imagine why we have not had provision of this kind before this in Acts of Parliament. I should think we have spent about £100,000,000 on our roads, and hitherto we have never had power to experiment as to what kind of surface is the best for our roads. Anyone accustomed to motoring must have
realised that the various local authorities have been trying their hands at experiments as to which is the best way of getting a permanent surface. I hope that now that this fund is available for genuine tests on measured stretches of road we shall be able to determine what is the most economical and permanent roadway we can get. A provision of this kind is long overdue, and the sooner it is embodied in an Act of Parliament the better.
With regard to tolls, I realise the enormous advantage of getting rid of them, and I remember that Mr. Gladstone conferred an enormous benefit in 1882 by abolishing turnpikes. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman will not feel himself forced to free every toll at the price fixed by the owners to-day. Do not let us be driven into accepting any bargains which are offered in this respect. There are many tolls charged on bridges which prevent a free access to certain roads, and those bridges were very often erected by the owners of the land on the other side of the river. If we free those bridges from tolls the inevitable result will be that there will be a very largo rise in the value of the land opened up by the toll-free bridge.
May I remind hon. Members of the time when Waterloo Bridge was freed from tolls in 1878. Previously everybody had to pay d. for crossing Waterloo Bridge, and the London County Council went to great expense in freeing the bridge from tolls. It is recorded that owing to the fact that a large number of the people living on the south side of the river had to cross the river to get to their work in the Strand and Fleet Street they had to pay 6d. a week for crossing the river, and the immediate effect of freeing the bridge was to raise the rents on the south side of the river precisely by 6d. per week. We do not want to spend large sums of money freeing some of these bridges merely to benefit the owners of the land on the other side of the water. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will bear this inevitable result in mind when he is making a bargain with the owners of these toll bridges.

Colonel ASHLEY: The initiative must always come from the local authority.
They are the people who initiate the negotiations and carry them through. They only come to me when they want more money.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In every case they will come to the right hon. Gentleman for approval, and he will have to find the bulk of the money. I hope that he will watch these cases and see that an excessive price is not paid, when the payment of that price will primarily result in improving the value of the property of the people who own the bridge at the present time. Then we are given some prospect, which I hope is going to be realised, of getting embodied in this Bill, when it goes to a Committee, a Clause which will enable the right hon. Gentleman and the local authorities—but, the right hon. Gentleman in this case has an initiative—to abolish blind corners. I am very glad that that is so, but I was rather shocked by one reference to this question in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The blind corners which it is proposed to safeguard are those corners where a first or second-class road cuts a country road.

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not a copy by me at the moment of the Bill of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir E. Iliffe), but I think it is a junction between a first-class and a second-class road.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If that be so it only makes my case the stronger. My impression was that at the intersection between one of these main roads with a country road. This Clause, as I understand the Bill of the hon. Member for Tam-worth, will, if embodied in this Bill, prevent anyone from building houses within a certain number of yards of a corner—in other words, it will interfere with his absolute right to do what he likes with his own. It will, in effect, be of the nature of a by-law restricting building within a certain distance of the junction of these roads. The right hon. Gentleman said he was a little doubtful as to whether we should impose this restriction on a man's right to do what he likes with his own, without paying him compensation. The Bill of the hon. Member for Tam-worth, as I understand it, provides no compensation, and I hope that that principle will be carried through and that we shall not see compensation paid for preventing a man from building within a
certain few yards of the junction of two roads. It would be very unfair to pay such compensation, because everyone would claim compensation, although they might never want to build at that particular corner at all, and the demands for compensation would make it almost impracticable to get these blind corners properly safeguarded.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at this question from the point of view of a bye-law rather than from the point of view of acquiring property, I think he will be taking the right point of view. To-day we lay it down definitely that people are not to build more than 40 houses to the acre, and we lay it down definitely, in many town-planning schemes, that houses are to be even more thinly put upon the ground. That is a definite interference by the State with the right of a property owner to do as he likes with his property, and we might extend that principle, which is generally accepted as being in the interests of the community and as not being unjust, to this question of blind corners, and lay it down definitely to apply where main roads intersect. Indeed, I would go further, and say that, where these new arterial roads cut across country roads, no building should be allowed to be erected within a certain number of yards of the junction, which can obscure the view and thus lead to an accident.
I take this earliest opportunity of urging the right hon. Gentleman not to introduce the question of compensation into this matter of blind corners. If, as he suggests, it is only a question of main roads, I would point out to him that really the owners have less case there for claiming compensation than in the case of country roads, because, where these very fine arterial highways are made at the public expense, the local property owners are relieved from the heavy charges which come upon them to-day in the way of making up their road frontages if they lay out their estates for building purposes. We know that at the present time building is going on along these new roads at a very rapid rate, and one inducement that is held out by the owners of property, when they are asking people to buy their land at enhanced prices, is that there will be no charge for frontage—that, the State having put in order the main road in front of the houses, there
will be no charge levied upon people who purchase plots for housing purposes for making that road good. In other words, they escape a very heavy charge which would naturally fall upon property owners who lay out their property for building purposes. That seems to me to be a sufficient reply to any demand for special compensation for a denial of the right to build at corners. If property owners are injured in any sort of way by being prevented from building at corners, they can set off against that the enormous advantage of having their road frontages made up for them at the public expense.
That leads me to another question. I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he is seeing this Bill through Committee, could not introduce into his legislation—into this Bill, if possible, or, if not, into some future Bill—some measure of recovery for the public of some of the enormous advantages that come from the making of these roads. The other day I went down to Southend, where the new arterial road, which is costing, I think, £1,250,400, opens up a vast residential area which would never have been residential had it not been for the making of that road. On the station platform I noticed a large advertisement of an estate for sale which has been bisected by this new road. It is called the Oak Hill Estate, I think, and the main Southend road cuts right through it. It is on high land, and is, perhaps, the most desirable residential site near Southend. It is obvious that the making of this road has made the value of that estate, opening out, by cheap and easy communication, what is now, no doubt, a very valuable residential property on both sides of the road. Would it not be possible to adopt for our general legislation some sort of principle such as applies, I believe, in Liverpool to-day? The Municipality of Liverpool long ago, in some private Act of Parliament, obtained powers to recover from frontage owners the cost of making the road as soon as those frontage owners developed and sold their property.
It seems to me only reasonable that, when we spend millions of money in making roads, we should take some steps to recover for the community the enormously enhanced value of these riparian lands along each side of those roads. This value is at present going into cer-
tain private pockets, and it is not fair that individuals should get this enormous benefit from the expenditure of public money. If we could embody for general purposes the principle that applies, and has now, I think, applied for 20 years in the case of Liverpool, we should not only be acting in accordance with justice, but should also be making it much easier for the right hon. Gentleman to make more of these roads and to develop what is bound to become the new system of transportation throughout the world. It is with no desire to criticise or carp at the policy of the right hon. Gentleman that I make these suggestions. These problems have been facing us all, and we have to think them out. I hope we shall see within this Bill, before it leaves this House for another place, provisions which will enable the country to be beautified, and which will enable this road-making to be carried out on the most permanent and the most economical lines, together with that provision for additional safety which the abolition of blind corners alone can give.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House, while approving of the power to conduct research and experiment on road construction and on the freeing of roads from tolls, cannot sanction expenditure on these Objects out of the Road Fund until all rural roads upon which there is motor traffic receive a fairer proportion of the said fund.
I hope the Minister will not think, after his courteous visit to us in the Agricultural Committee, that this Amendment is moved for any reason except that those of us who live in the country have very grave doubts as to how this Bill is going to help to improve the roads. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, his great idea was to beautify the roads; and I am quite sure that, having himself, as we know, beautiful gardens, he must wish everyone to have the same beautiful views. If the new Bill had been called the "Beautification of Roads Bill," that would have been nearer to the meaning of its first two Clauses than the improvement of roads. Where I join issue with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel
Wedgwood) is with regard to the trees and gardens that we are to have on the sides of the roads. I have been on the roads committee of a district council for some six or seven years, and I am also the unfortunate possessor of some woods and trees alongside a road. I have never once been asked by any road authority to plant trees, but I am asked year after year if I cannot cut down a tree here or a tree there, or clear a wood away, in order to let the sun and air get on the road.
I should also like to submit my experience, with which I am sure every builder will agree, that, if you have big trees near to houses, even within 10 yards, their roots will go right underneath the walls and cause cracks. Although the Minister gets his advice from Kew and from other forestry experts, I should like him to get advice about planting trees by the road from someone who knows how to make roads and what is the effect of trees thereon. Local authorities will not value the power to plant trees by the roads, but they will value very highly the power, with appropriate compensation and on reasonable terms, to cut down trees, and especially to prevent the formation of blind corners. I wonder that the Minister, in bringing forward this Bill for the improvement of roads, has not brought forward the principle enunciated in the Road Improvements (Blind Corners Prevention) Bill of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir E. Iliffe). That would have made his suggestions of some use, and that is what the local authorities require, namely, power reasonably to better the conditions as regards blind corners where country roads cross large roads. It would have been well to take proper precautions now in good time, before building and planting, or whatever may be going on, has commenced, to prevent the formation of these blind corners. It is not only these powers that are needed, but exactly the opposite powers to what the Minister is trying to take, of planting gardens and trees along main roads or any other roads.
Further, I do not think that at the present time any extravagance is justified until the rural roads are made better. The Minister said he was being the best friend to the rural road, but the rates on these rural roads are higher week by week and year by year, so that they are
becoming worse rather than better than before. We want to see it made possible for light trade lorries to go to the cottage door and deliver bread and so on. We cannot have these rural roads made up for heavier traffic, but it is absolutely essential that they should be able to carry light motor traffic if you want to get people to live in the countryside. Unless these rural district councils are given more facilities for their unclassified district roads, more roads will be shut up than is the case at the present moment. I will read a Resolution from the Hungerford Rural District Council, and I suppose the right hon. Gentleman has received similar resolutions from many of the 591 district councils affected:
That the attention of the Ministry of Transport be called to the burden placed upon ratepayers owing to the increased cost of maintaining district roads which are not classified. This Council is strongly of the opinion that the Ministry, in spending large sums of money derived from motor taxation for new arterial roads, is deflecting such revenue from its legitimate purpose. The existing roads of the country should be built up as a first charge, and an annual grant should be made to district councils for this purpose.
The Minister of Transport has stated that the big arterial roads will help the housing question. Certainly they will, but I would point out that the district council which passed the resolution I have just read are very poor. They have no rich ratepayers, and it is a very hard thing for them to deal with the roads and also to provide houses. They have a desperate situation as regards houses, and they have adopted the 1924 Act, which is the only Act which would enable the people who have to live in those houses to pay the rents. It is impossible for a council like this particular council to meet their liabilities with regard to the roads and to proceed with their housing schemes. That is the reason why the resolution was sent to me and to the Ministry. The council in question are responsible for a very old town, and the people there are the class of steady people who ought to be helped; but they cannot be helped unless the district council is assisted more generously with regard to the expenditure upon the roads. The council cannot afford housing and roads at the same time.
The high rates which obtain under these district councils are more due to the cost
of the unclassified roads than anything else, and the high rates are doing more to stop houses being put up in those districts and the districts being developed than anything else. In connection with one district council of which I am a member, I asked last week how many miles of roads had been closed to heavy traffic in the last three years, and the reply was 161 miles. That is in regard to only one of the 590 district councils. I would like to know how many of the 590 district councils have closed, say, 10 miles of roads to heavy traffic. Would the Minister of Transport state how many miles of roads have been closed by district councils in the last three or four years? If each council has closed only 10 miles, that would mean over 5,000 miles closed to heavy motor traffic. The number of miles closed represents two or three times as many miles of new construction roads that have been opened.
I submit to the Minister of Transport and to the Government that if they want to get people to live in the country, the first thing they must do is to help them with the local roads. A resolution sent to the Minister from Nantwich suggests that a certain percentage of the fund arising from the taxation of motor vehicles should be set aside each year and allocated to the district councils at an agreed rate for the miles of roads maintained by each council, based upon the classification of the respective roads in their particular districts. The Minister has made much of the millions of pounds he has given to the unclassified roads. He stated the other day, in answer to a question, that 317 out of 579 rural district councils had received grants. That means that 262 received no grant at all. The millions of pounds which have been distributed ought to have been evenly distributed. It is most unfair that the principle of distribution should be that of first come first served. Why should not the grants be evenly and fairly distributed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): These remarks would appear to be a criticism of the administration of the Ministry of Transport. I understand that the Ministry have a discretion in the administration of the Fund. Therefore, the proper place for this criticism would be when the Estimates are under dis-
cussion. At the present time, the hon. and gallant Member is free to talk about legislation but not administration.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I apologise. I will try to keep in order. The Minister said that he had been the best friend of the rural roads. I wonder why he has changed his policy?

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell me in what way I have changed my policy?

Brigadier - General BROWN: I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has not changed his policy. Therefore, I hope that we shall get a fairer distribution of the grants to unclassified roads. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that two years ago, on the 27th February, 1923, he said at the close of a Debate in this House on rural roads:
It has come to us, and to our Ministry, that in the rural districts undoubtedly some local roads are used by motor traffic coming from a distance, and we are searching out some way whereby, without diminishing the grants to the first and second-class roads, we can assist the third-class roads."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1923; col. 1914. Vol 160.]
The right hon. Gentleman stated that two years ago. Since then he has had nine months out of office to think things over, and he is now in office again. After these two years, is he still unable to find any way to assist the third-class roads? I ask him to hurry up and find a way.

Colonel ASHLEY: The Minister of Transport in the last Government and myself have carried out that policy by giving in three years some £5,000,000 to unclassified roads in rural districts. I think that is not an ungenerous contribution out of £42,000,000 available from the Road Fund.

Brigadier - General BROWN: Some 50,000 miles of unclassified roads have not received any grant at all. I was pointing that out, when I was called to order. Two years ago a Resolution was passed in this House that grants should be allotted from the Road Board Fund in respect of all roads, whether classified or unclassified. The Resolution further stipulated that this Fund should be earmarked in future for the maintenance
of existing roads only and should not be applied to the construction of new roads or for any other purpose. This Bill vitiates every principle of that Resolution. When that Resolution was passed, the Road Fund was only getting £11,000,000 to £12,000,000, and it is now getting £15,000,000. Why has not the Minister of Transport given the extra £3,000,000 to help the unclassified roads which they were so anxious to help two years ago? Instead of doing that, they have brought in a Bill which operates against the roads of these rural district councils, with the result that the rates will be increased and the development of the countryside will be checked. The Minister of Transport stated the other day that he was not allowed to spend more than one-third of the road grants on new construction roads. I asked him then, and I ask him now, to give a guarantee that any money which this Bill takes out of the Road Fund shall come out of the one-third which is allowed by this House to be spent on new construction. Will he also give a guarantee that no money that this Bill costs will come out of the two-thirds which ought to be spent on the classified and unclassified local roads? In that event £10,000,000 would go to the classified and unclassified local roads, and £5,000,000 for new construction. At the present time, £10,000,000 does not go to the local roads. If he were to give a guarantee, there would be a chance for the local authorities to get the money that is due to them instead of the money going into the maws of the Ministry of Transport.
We Conservative Members were returned to oppose Socialism. A Bill like this shows Socialism from beginning to end, and there is no wonder that hon. Members on the other side support it. Conservative Members of Parliament should see that the local authorities are not done down by a big, strong Ministry here. The money would be much more helpful to the country and much better spent if the House would say that the local authorities should have a certain definite sum, year by year, allocated to them, which the Ministry of Transport cannot seize by bringing in Bills of this kind and taking money, which ought to go to the local authorities for road purposes. I think that the Government which two years ago passed the Resolu-
tion, which I have read, should now be willing to carry it out. Although they have £3,000,000 more available in the Road Fund, they are not keeping the promise.

Mr. HURD: I beg to second the Amendment, but I do not do so because I do not agree with the Minister that this is an excellent Bill—at any rate, in all respects but one. I do not think that anybody can look at some of the exits of London without realising what an appalling mess our ancestors and ourselves have made in connection with many of those exits. You have only to go to the Archway Road (running from Highgate to the North, the Great North Road) to see an object lesson in ugliness. If the present Minister a Transport had been in office when that road was constructed, and been able to bring in a Bill of this sort, we might have had something which would have compared with the amenities of the exits from towns like Frankfurt or Dresden. I hope that we shall see not only more trees and grass margins but something else. If you go to Dresden, you find the acacia tree and other trees, such as the catalpa, an August-blooming tree, which we have on the Embankment. There are other trees besides the eternal plane tree, of which the Minister of Transport and other tree planters seem so fond. I am glad the Minister of Transport is seeking expert advice in regard to the trees to be planted, and I hope those experts will give us a little more variety than we have had in the past.
I agree with what was said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that too much importance cannot be attached to the experiments that may be made, and by which great economies may be effected. I happen to be a member of a town council whose surveyor has made experiments of the kind referred to by the right hon. and gallant Member, and they have been of enormous benefit in creating a surface which would carry modern heavy loads. It is a great thing to have these experiments extended and codified, but it will be an expensive job. Another expensive matter will be the tolls included in this Bill. Something like 130, or it may be more, of these toll barriers still remain. It is obvious that if we are not going in
for a policy of confiscation we may in that respect alone be creating a very considerable item of expenditure. One toll of which I know in the south-west country yields a revenue to the present owner of £6,000 a year. If you take anything like the ordinary Treasury terms for clearing away that barrier, hon. Members will sec what a heavy charge may be landed upon the Road Fund in this one item alone with regard to tolls.
6.0 P.m.
In the past, when we who represent the agricultural areas have asked the Ministry of Transport for a little more consideration for rural roads, we have always been met by the one reply, that they have no money. When the Minister of Transport to-days asks: "In what have I changed my policy?" the answer is: "In this respect. You have brought in a Bill extending the objects of expenditure for which you are making a prior charge on the Road Fund, and pushing the many claims of the rural roads a little further down in the scale." That is a very serious change of policy which I very deeply regret. We hope to see this Road Fund grow, and to see money spent in the way contemplated under this Bill, but we do not think it right, in view of the position of the rural roads, that the claims of the rural roads should be pushed further back in order to increase the amenities of the great main roads.

Colonel ASHLEY: As I understand, the hon. Member is rather afraid that the rural road is being pushed further back. May I remind him that in 1923 the rural roads got £1,500,000 and last year they got £1,250,000; that is to say, the unclassified roads. This year they are going to get £1,000,000, which was arranged for by my hon. Friend the Member for White-chapel (Mr. Gosling) and will come out of this year's fund, and, in addition, £1,250,000, which I hope to be able to allocate myself, so that for 1925–26 rural roads will have over £2,000,000, whereas two years ago they only got £1,500,000.

Mr. HURD: It is true that we are getting a little more, but we are not getting so much as the right hon. Gentle man knows we ought to get. The amount is not very much more than 10 per cent., and the roads which have not received any grant are over 96 per cent. of the whole of the rural roads. Only about 3½
per cent. to 4 per cent. have received any grant, and nearly all these roads have to carry this heavy motor traffic. I think that we can justly claim for them something more than the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give. In this matter the House of Commons has taken up a very definite stand. On 27th February, 1923, as my hon. Friend has reminded us, the House of Commons adopted by a large majority a Resolution stating that, as rural roads are now used by motor vehicles, grants should be allotted in respect of these roads, whether classified or unclassified. Now the right hon. Gentleman pushes that Resolution a little lower down, although 196 voted in favour of it and only 58 against it. I would remind the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling) that four of his colleagues voted for that Resolution, and I would remind the Minister of Transport that no fewer than eight of his colleagues voted for the Resolution. But the terms of that Resolution have not been carried out.
When the last conference of rural authorities was held, and the then Minister of Transport attended, I put it to him whether he thought that the Resolution which had been carried in good faith was being carried into effect or, the lines of the House of Commons decision, and he said, "The fact that it has not been carried into effect is no fault of mine. It is for you, Gentlemen, who were the means of getting that Resolution passed, if you think it worth while, to see that effect is given to it." We feel aggrieved that the Minister of Transport should come forward to-day with a Measure which, in its financial Clauses, does push that Resolution a little further back from execution, and I second the appeal of my hon. Friend that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it is not due, especially in view of the Resolution, to the agricultural Members of this House, and to the whole rural community, that some definite understanding should now be come to as to a larger proportion out of the Road Fund being allocated to the districts with respect to which the House of Commons made its declaration.
No one can deny that in the rural districts the position is becoming intolerable, and that the taxes are increasing in respect of the upkeep of the roads, owing
to the developments of motor traffic. In addition to the new impediment created by this Bill, we have the old impediment, which we tried to get the hon. Gentleman opposite to remove. That is the question of money spent on unemployment, which, we think, ought to be a national charge and not a charge against the Road Fund. We have asked whether, in regard to these new arterial roads, the money could be raised by loan, and loan interest charged against the Road Fund, so as to allow a mortgage to go against what they regard as delayed benefit. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman is to be encouraged in the part which he is taking in respect of the road policy of this country, but I do ask him not to add this new injustice to the old injustice from which we have been suffering for many years past.

Major CRAWFURD: We welcome this Bill but, if I may, I would like to press three points on the right hon. Gentleman with regard to what he has said about it. In the first place, I rather regret the turn which the Debate has taken, and I do not propose to follow the last two speakers in the role of what I may perhaps call, without offence, commercial travellers for particular constituencies. I have not, of course, any objection to hon. Members making claims on behalf of those whom they represent, but I do rather resent that, while they do that, they should decry the claims of those whom other people represent, and I would add a word to what has been said already by the hon. Member for White-chapel (Mr. Gosling) No Member who represents an urban constituency can do anything else than welcome very warmly the proposals that have been made, or are being made, to improve the amenities of urban life in this country, amenities which are very badly, almost tragically, in need of being improved. I would willingly strike a bargain with hon. Members who represent rural constituencies, and if they would admit that as much should be spent on improving the amenities of urban roads as is spent on improving the surface of rural roads then, I think, we shoud both be content. At any rate, I welcome very much the proposal contained in this Bill for tree planting and generally for the beautifying of urban districts.
The second point to which I wish to refer is the question of experiments. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will receive a welcome for this Bill, which is not quite as modest as he represents it to be, because, to me, it seems to introduce three very valuable principles. This is the second. There is a very general welcome for his Bill from all those people who will be glad to know that the Government have realised that the increase and the betterment of transport facilities in all its aspects is one of the foundations on which the reconstruction of the country must be based, and I would only ask in regard to that, that if it falls to the lot of the right hon. Gentleman to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament he will see the experiment is widespread. There is a tendency with such experiments very often for one or two experts or functionaries to have the bulk of the experiments carried on under their supervision, and the right hon. Gentleman has, of course, recognised that the whole subject of road surface of concrete roads is in its infancy, A great deal has to be done by experiments as to various forms of strengthening material, and reinforcement, and even the question of whether the roads are to be convex or concave. All these matters are in their infancy, and you want the experiments to be spread as widely as possible.
The third point to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the question to which he gave a sort of conditional blessing. That is the question of blind corners. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and to the hon. Gentleman who followed him, they are not completely familiar with the details of the position. The corners that have to be considered are the junctions of Class 1 and Class 2 roads with another road, and such other roads as the Ministry of Transport may consider desirable or a bend of a dangerous character in a Class 1 or Class 2 road. I particularly welcome the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman and the hope, which he holds out, of these Clauses being incorporated in the Bill, because, as I think, he will recognise from the questions which have been asked during the year in this Parliament, and the private Members' Bills which have been introduced, that there is a great deal of interest from various angles in
the question of dealing with motor traffic. I do not know whether he agrees, but personally I think that the time has obviously arrived when a great deal of legislation regarding motor traffic should be reviewed and brought up to date. I would remind the House that this private Member's Bill dealing with blind corners does not propose to deal with existing blind corners. It does not propose to deal with the removal of obstructions, but with the prevention of obstructions being set up where there are no obstructions at present. It may seem to be a small thing, but it introduces a very valuable principle, and, personally, I cannot see that there will be any hardship to those who follow. The right hon. Gentleman raised rather a danger signal with regard to compensation, but I know that he will not allow that to stand in the way of getting these principles included in the Bill.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench declared against the payment of compensation. I think he was right for wrong reasons. When he argued that it was not unfair to withhold compensation in these cases because property owners had the value of their property increased in other cases, he was not using a sound argument, for you might be benefiting some property owners at the expense of other property owners. He should have argued in some such way as this: If you admit the principle that to erect such a building or obstruction at the meeting of two roads as would constitute a dangerous blind corner, is a wrong thing to do, then you take away anyone's right to compensation for not doing it. To say that there shall not be placed at a particular angle of the road any building is no more arbitrary or unjust than to say that buildings shall not be erected beyond a particular line. No one should be given a reward for not doing it. Otherwise, we should all be going to the Home Secretary and asking for pensions because we did not pick each others' pockets.
The principles which are laid down in this Bill, the Private Member's Bill, are very sensible. You have to definite what your corner is. You have to lay down the amount of space or the height beyond
which obstruction shall not be raised. You then have to say what roads and what corners this shall be applied to; you have to impose penalties and to make arrangements to indemnify owners who, by following the Act, are breaking some other contract. It seems to me that all that can be done in one or two quite simple but quite comprehensive Clauses. I know that it might be argued that those who use motor vehicles can themselves guard against any danger from blind corners by driving more carefully. I quite agree. But it is no consolation to the person who has been run over and had his legs broken to know that it is the fault of the other man. If you can make it less likely that he will be run over you are obviously removing or minimising some of the dangers. If the Government adopt legislation of this kind they will have with them the whole motor-using community and will be doing a great deal to improve the conditions under which roads are used, not only for motorists but for the foot passenger also. These three principles—the principles of beautifying urban roads, the principle of experiment in the construction of roads, and the principle of doing something to help to regulate the motor traffic of the country—amply justify the introduction of this Bill, which, I hope, will be pressed forward into law as soon as possible.

Sir HARRY HOPE: The Bill is a small Bill, but it deals with a very large problem. The traffic on our roads has been increasing enormously during the last few years, and at the present time is still increasing. We all know that from every town within, say, 20 or 30 miles, traffic which used to go on the railways is now going on the roads. Motor lorries are carrying goods of every description which formerly used to go by rail. In addition to that, we have char-a-bane traffic out of and into towns all over the country. The result is that our roads to-day are carrying a traffic which was undreamt of only 20 years ago. With that new problem in front of us, and with the task of providing funds for the upkeep of these roads, I think that people in the country districts, when they come to read the speech made by the Minister of Transport this afternoon, will be very disappointed with it, and that they will think that he does not seem
to realise the gravity of the position with which we are faced.
The Minister has referred to the advantage of planting trees along our roadsides. If you look at this question from the road point of view I believe that nearly all road surveyors will say that the planting of trees, with the attendant shading caused by those trees, will be bad for the continued life of the roads, and will lead to an increased cost in the upkeep of roads so shaded. Therefore, when we see this vast new traffic passing along our roads, a traffic that is still growing, I think this contribution to the problem which the Minister invites us to pass this afternoon is a very poor and inadequate one. In Scotland we have counties with a very large road mileage and with a low rateable value, which results in an enormous burden being placed on the people in those districts. We hear about the advantage of removing any obstacle which lies in the direction of food production, but with the enormous road assessments which we have now we have one of the greatest hindrances to the cheap production of food all over the country. Therefore, if there is money to be spent, I say do not let us fritter it away.
I think that this Bill does provide for money being frittered away. Do not let us fritter it away on what, after all, may be unnecessary work, but rather let us keep it for helping the highway authorities to bear the grievous burden which is upon them now. I am sure that if our county councils—I speak for Scotland—and their county councils association were asked their opinion of this Bill, they would say, "We have many problems in front of us, the problem of finding money to carry out repairs which are absolutely necessary, and this Bill does nothing to help us." I hope that the Minister will realise that we have great need for money in our country districts, and that as the motor traffic is now going on the roads instead of remaining on the railways, he ought to do far more to enable us to bear the burden of providing roads that will carry that great traffic.

Mr. R. MORRISON: The chorus of approbation which this Bill has received from all parts of the House must be very encouraging to the Minister, and in the attack which has been delivered upon it from the rear he has our sympathy. The
three explosive speeches delivered from the Minister's own followers, in which it was alleged that the Bill is full of prejudice, full of extravagance, and that it means money being frittered away, left me wondering how much of those speeches was business and how much was only hot air. In plain language, are the hon. Members behind the Minister merely taking advantage of the opportunity to ride their own pet horse, or do they really mean all that they have been saying, and do they intend to divide the House against their own side upon the Bill? If they take such drastic action as their brave words would seem to indicate, I am sure that Members on this side of the House will have very great pleasure in coming to the support of the Minister to save him from his friends. In directing a few re marks to the subject of the very useful little Bill under discussion, I wish at the outset to point out that the Road Fund this year will be approximately 215,000,000. Out of that sum grants are made by the Minister of Transport to the extent of 50 per cent. for Class I roads, and 25 per cent. for Class II roads. These two grants, taken together, absorb more than half the amount of the Road Fund.

Colonel ASHLEY: Nearly £9,500,000.

Mr. MORRISON: The balance of the Road Fund is applied to a variety of useful purposes, such as grants towards surveyors' salaries, rural roads, elimination of level crossings, the improvement of signposting and the building of new arterial roads. This Bill would add to those objects the planting and protection of trees, shrubs and grass margins, the placing of notices and the freeing of roads from tolls. As has been said from the, Front Opposition Bench, these objects meet with our entire approval. We all realise that new arterial roads are apt to be somewhat crude at first, and it depends entirely on the amount of co-operation between the local authorities and the Government as to what these roads will become. There is, for instance, the question of co-operation to prevent the new roads from being disfigured by huge advertisement hoardings, the action taken by local authorities to impose building lines, so that the roads may be bordered by pleasant gardens, and the taking of precautions to see that the view is not ruined by the unregulated growth of
slums and mean streets. I am sorry that some years ago, when these arterial roads were first planned, some steps were not taken to get into the pockets of the community the added value which has accrued to the owners of the land on either side of the road. In my own particular locality the building of a new arterial road has meant not only that the land on either side has been doubled and trebled or even quadrupled in value, but also that the owners of the land have actually been paid compensation for having the value of their land increased two, three, or four times.
Like other speakers who have praised this Bill, I want particularly to praise Clause 3, which gives to the Minister power to conduct experiments. The rapid increase in motor transport has meant the re-making of practically all the main roads of this country at an enormous expenditure. Up to now it has been nobody's business to carry out practical tests in road-making impartially and without any bias caused by the operation of private enterprise in connection with various road materials. I hope the Minister will take this power and will use it. I can foresee that in the hands of a progressively-minded Minister of Transport—and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman comes within that category—this power should result in a great fillip being given to road engineering in this country with beneficial results as regards both durability and cost. Some Members who take an interest in transport questions have had an uncomfortable feeling regarding the cost of these great road schemes. That uncomfortable feeling has not been allayed by the figures recently published in the balance-sheets of several of these large road construction companies, showing the enormously high dividends which they have been paying. There is also an uncomfortable feeling in the minds of many of us that these big road schemes are falling into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Some of us are not quite sure, for instance, when tenders are sought for schemes—running into a quarter of a million in some cases—as to how far there is collaboration between various firms in presenting tenders. I hope the Minister will interpret his powers under this Clause as widely as possible, so that they shall cover not only the question of
durability, but also the question of cost, and the prices of road material and that, where few firms put in tenders, due regard will also be paid to the question of how far these are genuine tenders. The most important point I wish to urge is one which has not been referred to so far in this Debate, namely, the question of lighting. Reference has been made to the enormous value of these arterial roads. I submit it is very necessary, particularly in regard to those parts of arterial roads which come near to large towns, and those parts which go through the suburbs of London, that these roads should be lighted at an early date.

Mr. HURD: Does the hon. Member propose that this expense should also come out of the Road Fund?

Mr. MORRISON: I am coming to that point if the hon. Member will curb his impatience, and when I do come to it, he may regard it as strengthening the case for the important Division which he and his friends are going to force against their own side. Anyone who lives in the vicinity of one of these arterial roads must realise that it is very necessary that they should be lighted at an early date. There are no pavements on these roads as we understand pavements in London. There is a sidewalk, but it is much more comfortable to walk on the roadway than on the sidewalk, with the result that 99 per cent. of the pedestrians who use these roads walk on the roadway instead of on the sidewalk. This involves danger to the pedestrian, and that is the first reason for lighting the roads. Hon. Members opposite will agree with my next point, which is that new motoring legislation may be expected very soon. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite frequently come into conflict with the police in regard to the present motoring Regulations, and as a result of their frequent appearances in the police courts in this connection, they have of late brought pressure to bear on the Minister of Transport. At every opportunity during Question time, questions are showered upon the Minister by the latest victims who have been fined. I have little doubt that the Minister will introduce legislation very soon either abolishing the speed limit altogether or increasing the speed
limit. It follows that it will then be more than ever necessary to take adequate precautions for the safety of pedestrians upon arterial roads which are going to be the happy hunting ground of motorists who love to travel at top-speed. If these roads are unlighted as those in my vicinity are, the motorists using them after dark will be compelled to employ headlights which will have a dazzling and confusing effect upon pedestrians and I believe the number of accidents will be considerable.
I have sought to prove that these roads are unsafe in their present unlighted state, and that it is not wise to allow them to remain so. In fact, if amending legislation such as I have indicated is passed with reference to the speed of motors, the public will not allow them to remain un lighted. As the law stands, the lighting authority is responsible for the initial capital expenditure on and the maintenance of lighting, and the lighting authority usually means the urban or rural district council. There are district councils in the country whose penny rate raises a very small sum; on the other hand there are enormously wealthy county councils, such as that of Middlesex, of which I lately had the honour of being a member, whose penny rate produces the princely sum of £33,000. The local authorities at the present time get no grant, either from the Road Fund or the county council, towards the initial capital expenditure or maintenance of the lighting of the roads. It is impossible to expect the average local council to light the roads in its area. How can you expect districts like Billericay, through which the Southend Road passes, or Chesham, through which the North Cambridge arterial road passes, to be able to embark upon the initial capital expenditure necessary for the lighting of those roads in their districts? Why should we expect them to do so? The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) rose in great indignation at the very idea that this charge should come upon the Road Fund. May I point out to him that, in regard to the arterial roads which we are constructing just now, in the case of 90 per cent. of the villages through which they pass it is doubtful if 1 per cent. of the traffic passing through a particular village is local traffic. Therefore, why should the charge
for lighting fall upon the local council in those cases? The Minister of Transport said we could not expect the Road Fund to be used for the relief of local rates. I agree; but at the same time we should not expect any grant from the Road Fund to be used to increase the local rates.
My own constituency is not an extreme ease. It has not been as hard hit as many other places through which arterial roads have been made. The North Cambridge road goes through Tottenham in two small sections, and the surveyor of the local council told me only this morning that 30 lamps would be required to light those two sections adequately, and the maintenance of those lamps, leaving aside capital expenditure, would cost £520 a year if they were electric lamps, or £420 a year if they were gas lamps. It comes back to the old question of who is going to pay. As I say, the case of my own constituency is not an extreme one in this respect, and there are other districts in a worse situation in this respect, but there are no houses upon the arterial road passing through my constituency, and the local council has no revenue from it. There is very little local traffic passing along this road, and I therefore suggest that when this Bill goes to Committee the Minister should submit an Amendment or sympathetically receive an Amendment which would enable him to make some grant towards the cost of lighting arterial reads where that is found to be necessary.
I do not suggest that the burden of lighting the whole length of these roads, say, from London to Southend, should be cast on the Road Fund. I suggest, however, that the position now is dangerous to the pedestrian, and is going to be more dangerous in the event of new motor legislation; I suggest that over 90 per cent. of pedestrians using these roads walk on the roadway instead of on the sidewalk, and that it is necessary to do something for their safety. I suggest, further, that the local councils are not getting any revenue from these roads, and for those reasons I ask the Minister to consider the proposal I have made that he should take powers under this Bill—in case there may not be another opportunity of doing so for some time to come—so as to provide a grant for the lighting of these roads. We cannot expect already heavily burdened local authorities to undertake this additional
charge. In my own case, we have just had an increase of nearly 1s. in the £ in the rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—thanks to the operations of a Conservative council, which we hope to displace on Saturday next. If hon. Gentleman opposite divide against their own Government on this Bill, I shall have pleasure in supporting it, but I hope the Minister will receive my suggestion, which is made with a view to the safety of pedestrians and the safety of motorists, and is also made with due regard to the financial position of the local authorities.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: I should like to associate myself with what is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devises (Mr. Hurd). I recognise the sympathetic attitude of the Minister of Transport, but he will forgive me for saying that I do not think £5,000,000 out of £42,000,000 is an adequate amount to have spent on rural roads. The problem is a pressing one, because the cost of rural roads is going up by leaps and bounds, and it directly affects the interest of agriculture in this country. It was suggested by the last speaker that some of us on this side have been talking hot air on this subject. I and those who sit with me were returned to do what we could to represent the interests of agriculture. According to the last return which I have been able to get from the Rural District Councils Association, the average rate per £ represented by the cost of roads in England and Wales has gone up from 1s. 1d. in the £, which was the rate for 1904, to 2s. 5d. in the £, which was the rate in the last year for which I have been able to get the figures. That shows the urgency of the problem.
I quite agree with what the Minister says, that we do not expect to get relief for the rates from the Road Fund, but we do object to the cost of rural roads continually rising by leaps and bounds. I find that in the last 15 years the cost of roads has risen by something like £26,000,000, and for the last year given in the Road Fund Report, the year 1923–24, I find that the Road Grants amounted to over £13,000,000. I should like to press on my right hon. Friend, who, I am quite aware, is sympathetic, that he ought to do more for the rural roads during the coming year. The first
charge on the Road Fund ought to be for the improvement and maintenance of the existing roads, and the cost of the new arterial roads, such as the one that was opened to Southend the other day, with a great flourish of trumpets, ought to be borne by loan and the payments spread over a term of years. Agriculture is in a by no means flourishing condition, and the cost of rural roads is very heavy. I, therefore, confidently appeal to the Minister to do what he can to help our great national industry.

Mr. GOSLING: I should not have intervened in this Debate but that I wanted to assure the Minister of Transport that, although we have changed our seats, we have not changed our minds, and we are as heartily in favour of this Bill to-day as we were when I had the honour of introducing it last year. With regard to tree planting, I had an experience at the Ministry of Transport which rather meets an objection made by one hon. Member that you want some variety in the trees planted. I remember that at the time when the Bill was introduced last year, there was considerable criticism of the placing of fruit trees on the roads in some places, and it was suggested that mischievous boys would steal the fruit. I was reminded of my own experience when I was a boy. At that time people did not plant flowers in parks as they do now, for the reason that they might be "pinched," but that has all gone, as we have got used to having them. So I feel that, even if we should put fruit trees on the road sides, we should very soon get used to them being there, and respect them. If you see the behaviour of children in our parks now, it is much better, because they have been taught much more than we were taught when we were children.
Another point that was pressed upon me very early in my experience at the Ministry of Transport was the large amount of money that was being spent, without adequate means of discovering whether or not it was being properly spent: and it struck me, with such business instinct as I had, that where £40,000,000 or 45,000,000 a year was being spent, one at least ought to make sure that every bit of it was being laid out after proper investigations had been made as to whether or not it was being
well and truly spent. It is true that experiments have always more or less been made by the officials of the Ministry, but never with any proper co-operation. What is really wanted is that a grant for all experiments that are made should be available for the whole of the country. It was felt—and I think there is no answer to it—that if you are going to spend all that money, you at least ought to have your laboratory, or whatever is wanted, to make sure that the money is well spent. I cannot imagine a big industrial undertaking, with anything like the turnover that there is in the way of making roads, which would not make that one of their very first thoughts.
With regard to tolls, I think the intention is only to be able to remove tolls as it is found possible. There are some remaining tolls that ought to be swept away. I went to the Ministry with a strong prejudice in favour of sweeping away all tolls, because I happen to have been born between Waterloo and Charing Cross, on the south side of the river, when there was no means of getting across the river, if you had not the money, unless you went over Blackfriars Bridge or Westminster Bridge. I think that, perhaps, what brought it to a head more quickly than anything else was that, when I was a small boy, I had a ticket given me for what was then the Alhambra Theatre, and my father gave me the money to buy some oranges, so that I might have a very fine night out. I did not mind walking over Westminster Bridge to get there, because it meant one more orange, and then, like most boys with a little money, I had done it all in. I thought, "Well, never mind, I will go home before the show is over," but the show was so interesting that I could not leave it till the finish, and I had to walk back again over Westminster Bridge in order to get home, and it rained all the way! I am not going to pretend that I said to myself, if ever -I became Minister of Transport, what I would do, but I think I thought there was a screw loose somewhere, and that these tolls ought to be abolished. That has always been in my mind, and I know, having been brought up on the south side of the river in this great city, what a difficulty it is for people who want to get about when they are met with tolls from time to time, and have not the
money. It is bad enough if you are riding, but at least we ought to have the right to walk on the main roads without being interfered with by tolls. Therefore, I had great pleasure in having the opportunity to introduce that question into this Bill when it was my job.
There is one point which I see has gone out of the Bill, and it may be there is good reason for it. But another experience of mine was that it was very soon borne in on me that, with all the accidents that occur—and there are quite a lot of serious accidents on the roads—there is no power for the Minister of Transport to hold an inquiry to find out the cause. It never struck me as being needed so much for the purpose of punishing anybody as to try to find a means of preventing the accident occurring again. Something like this happens, as far as I know: There is a fatal accident, and the coroner holds an inquiry. He has no technical experts with him, and the Minister cannot do more than write to the coroner and say: "I shall be pleased to put So-and-So at your disposal, if you care to have him." The coroner may say "Yes," or he may say "No." But the Ministry has no power at all, and it seems to me that a great Ministry like the Ministry of Transport. should have the power, and should ask for the power, to enable them to hold inquiries in such a way as would enable them to get at the reasons for these serious accidents, and thus, perhaps, be able to prevent them 'An the future. There may be some reason why that Clause is out of the Bill now, but it was in, and I am sorry to see that it has gone.
With regard to the general opposition to the Bill, so far as I can tell—and I have looked at the same gentlemen from that side over here—there is nothing in it, and they are either playing for time, or wanting to show that they are looking after certain interests. At any rate, the party to which I belong were heartily in favour of this Bill being introduced, and are very anxious that it should not be delayed any longer. We, therefore, give it our very best blessing, and hope it will go through without opposition.

Lieut.-Colonel HORLICK: I wish to say a few words on behalf of what appears to me to be a most excellent Bill. I think everybody realises the gravity of the state of the unclassified rural roads, but there is one point of view which has
not yet been put forward, and that is that the great majority of motorists—and it is the motorists who find the money for this Road Fund—come from urban districts, and for the main part they use first-and second-class roads. I do not think it is just that money should be found by a certain class of the community and not by the community as a whole, and it seems to me that if fresh money is required for the rural roads, it will have to come from some other fund. A sum of £15,000,000 is now found by the motorists, of which, I understand, some 75 per cent. is used on the first and second-class roads, and a large sum already subscribed to the rural roads. Hon. Members who have spoken have said it would reduce the cost of freights and so on, but the motorist when he puts his money down is doing it toward improving the roads, and I think the money should come from the community as a whole.
One great point in the Bill is that dealing with experiments, and there is still vast matter for fresh experiment and for improvement in existing road manufacture. I should like to point out that at the present moment the colouring of these new roads is practically black, and at night it is extremely difficult to see on them, unless one has very powerful head lamps. If one could only get them made of a lighter colour, as they are in the United States of America, it would be much easier to see more clearly than one does at present and with much dimmer headlights. Again, there is the problem of skidding, which has not yet been tackled at all. A great number of these new roads are extremely skiddy when it has rained for a few moments, and that is another problem which requires a great deal of experiment. The effect of heat and cold on road surfaces is another matter which requires much experiment.
I would like to say a few words with regard to the question of lighting, mentioned by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison). As a practical motorist of some 20 years' experience, I believe that, unless roads are really brilliantly lighted, it is safer to drive on roads without any lights at all. I do not think there are any more dangerous streets in the world than those which are dimly lit on the outskirts of big cities, where it is neither one thing nor the other. The light from these dim
lamps just counteracts the light from one's headlights, and to obtain the brilliancy required to light long stretches of these arterial roads, the cost would be prohibitive.

Mr. MACKINDER: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that they should not be lighted at all?

Lieut.-Colonel HORLICK: In the country—

Mr. MACKINDER: What about the footpaths?

7.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel HORLICK: In conclusion, I would just like to put in a plea to the Minister on the question of blind corners. It was mentioned by one hon. Member opposite, and, of course, it is obvious that the blind corner is one of the chief causes of dangerous accidents, and the fewer we can have the better. In the United States they have gone so far as to have large notices put on any roads coming into arterial high roads—"Arterial High Road. Stop"—and you are responsible by law for stoping before you come on to such a road, whether you can see up or down on each side or not. If there be an accident at one of those corners the car which comes off the byroad is automatically held to be the guilty party. This particular Measure would merely prevent any further blind corners being built up. I would therefore ask the Minister if he can see his way to insert this in the present Measure.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The hon. Gentleman the ex-Minister of Transport (Mr. Gosling) and the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) suggested that hon. Gentlemen opposite were not serious in the Amendment that they moved. They talk about it being hot air. I cannot understand what purpose is served by making such innuendoes. It is absurd to insinuate that hon. Gentlemen, with the eyes of their constituents upon them, are going to trifle with the importance of this matter to the communities living in agricultural districts. It is obvious that no other course is open to them unless we get some satisfaction from the Minister, but to divide the House. I will support them in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill spoke, as we
know he is, like a Progressive, generous, fair-minded bureaucrat but I would ask him to take a different view of this question than merely the bureaucratic view. He speaks about contributions towards the upkeep of rural roads. I would ask him to remember the heavy burden that the policy of the Government in insisting on the building of these Class 1 and Class 2 roads up to a standard lit for motorists, has imposed upon the people at the present time. In the Highlands of Scotland, where I come from people are staggering under the burden of rates. There is the education rate. You get something for that, the education of your children. Then there is this great heavy deadweight of the road rate. In the county of Sutherland it is no less than 4s. 6d. in the £. The right hon. Gentleman will say, when he replies, that he has treated the county of Sutherland very generously. That is quite true, within the limit, of his present policy, but I say it is wrong that you should place this burden on the poor people of that county in order that the roads should be maintained in a state fit for motorists.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Member says "within the limit of my present policy." Is he suggesting that, I should increase the tax on motor vehicles?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: How the right hon. Gentleman should get the money is a matter for the Government to decide. It certainly is not for me to decide, unless the right hon. Gentleman invites me to become the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a matter for the Government to decide whether it comes from taxes or additional taxation imposed on the motorists. In any ease I say, without fear of contradiction from the right hon. Gentleman, that it is not fair to place the burden upon the local people. In Sutherland, the road rate before the War was 1s. It is now 4s. 6d. For the purposes of agriculture, for the purposes of those people who live there, the roads are not so good as they were before the War. They do not like these slippery surfaces for the horses. They are paying more than four times the road rate and getting a worse article, from the agricultural point of view, than before the War. The people who are paying are poor fishermen and poor people living in the towns
and villages. In Golspie I know a man who paid 7s. 6d. for his road rate before the War. He is now paying over £2. The right hon. Gentleman said it is very hard. It is much more than very hard. It is an intolerable burden. The people who get the benefit of these stretches of fine roads are the people who come from the big cities. Whoever it is should pay this money—it is not the local people. It is the people who use the roads; the people who come from the cities—by additional taxation on motor cars or by taxation in some other way—should pay.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) talked just now about the amenities which were so tragically lacking in the great cities. In these parts I am referring to it is the necessities which are lacking. Poor fishermen, who cannot even get a harbour in which to shelter and from which to prosecute their calling, have to pay rates of 4s. 6d. in the £ to keep up these luxurious roads. The county of Sutherland has to keep up 670 miles of roads on a valuation of £84,000, and then we read in the papers that the right hon. Gentleman is building a road from Glasgow to Edinburgh to cost £1,000,000. That is the reason why we say we want more money for the upkeep and maintenance of our rural roads, and less spent on these extravagant new roads. The right hon. Gentleman is building a road from Perth to Inverness. The effect of that will be to bring fleets of motor cars on this new road, and they will come along our roads in the North cutting them up worse than ever. I ask him if the construction of this great arterial road from Perth to Inverness does not give the Northern counties a claim for a higher share of grants. Then when we want roads for our local affairs, for the crofting town ships, to enable the crofters to carry on their agricultural affairs, we cannot get the money, and these men who are paying this enormous rate of 4s. 6d. in the £ are unable to get grants to obtain the roads required for their own needs.
I make to the right hon. Gentleman three suggestions. In the first place, I would say that the county councils, especially in the Highlands, should have some control over the weight and speed of the great lorries which come on our roads. These lorries are brought in by
the Shell Company, and people like that, and, travelling at great speed, they cut up our roads. Then I would say that the only fair way to free these poor counties and to put them on a level with the wealthier districts, is to have a flat rate levied all over the country and let the Government find the necessary money to keep the roads up to the level necessary for motorists. Finally, if he does not like that, then I say the main roads ought to be nationalised. The right hon. Gentleman talked of a national fund.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting a very long way away from the Bill.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am very sorry. I was led away through trying to help. This puts a heavy burden on the rural districts. It is not for their needs; it is for the needs of people who come from the big cities, and it is unfair that we in the rural districts should pay more than four times for the upkeep of the roads than we paid before the War. It is deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman should come to this House and suggest he should go in for expenditure on the lines suggested in this Measure, depleting the Road Fund before we get the urgent requirements of the rural districts met. I, therefore, hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) will not fail to divide the house if we get- no satisfaction from the Minister.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am rather diffident and shy at interfering with Scottish affairs, and I think I can leave the county council of Perthshire and the great Corporations of Edinburgh and Glasgow to deal with the speech of the hon. and gallant. Gentleman to whom we have just listened. In effect, he says, "I object to the-road between Glasgow and Edinburgh, which was enthusiastically supported by the two great corporations; I object to the reconstruction of the road between Perth and Inverness, which has the enthusiastic support of the county council of Perthshire; and I do not want any of those fandangoes contained in the new Bill." I know what his wish is. I know he does not think that there should be any milestones or signposts on the roads.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am very sorry if I failed to make myself clear. I stand by the wording of the Amendment which I
have supported, which says that this Measure should not be proceeded with until we receive from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall get a stronger measure of financial assistance.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling) asked me a very important question, namely, why there is no provision made in the Bill so that the Ministry of Transport can hold inquiries into accidents. I was anxious not to overload the Bill. I knew that the more I put into it the more opposition there would be, and the Government hope, if time can be found, to have a proper Vehicles Bill, which will embrace a large number of subjects, this Session; if not this year, at any rate next year; and I propose to put in that Bill power to the Ministry of Transport to make those inquiries. There have been very shocking accidents. It is only right and proper that there should be some proper authority which should have power to inquire into those matters.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I take it that, the power would include power to hold an inquiry regardless of whether fatalities occurred.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that would have to be left to the discretion of the Minister. May I thank the House very cordially for the praise it has given to me over the introduction of this Bill. I do not think in any quarter of the House there has be-en any serious criticism at all about the Bill as a Bill. One or two hon. Members have stated that they would like a few more things. The only opposition has been from my hon. Friends representing the rural areas, who say, "We will support the Bill, but, as we are talking about roads, let us take the opportunity of putting forward our claims for further assistance for our areas." Any assistance I can give out of the Road Fund I am anxious to give, but I would impress these two points: First, that this is a national Fund and, secondly, that this is a Fund which was instituted for the maintenance and improvement of roads. Subject to those two great principles, I have done, and intend to do, as much as I possibly can for the rural roads.
I said at the beginning of my speech I had every sympathy with the rural
roads, because I know their needs, having been a member of a rural district council, and I am paying extremely high rates for the upkeep of rural roads in my own county. But it is impossible for any Minister to give more out of a fund than he has in the fund. Perhaps I may point out that I initiated this system of giving grants to rural roads two and a-half years ago, and £5,000,000 will have been given by myself and my successor over and above anything given before for the assistance of these unclassified roads in rural districts; and the whole income of the fund is only £41,000,000. I think, therefore, the House must agree that we have not made an ungenerous start in this matter. I do not want to raise the question of town and country. I am sure the question will not be asked, "Are you giving enough to the towns?" or "Are you giving enough in the interests of the motorists who are finding the money?" I hope hon. Members will have confidence in me. I am trying to do my best to help all parties. Everyone naturally desires to get all the money possible for his own particular aspect of the question. I think I may leave it at that, and assure my hon. Friends and the country that I have gone as far as I have been able to go, and I am certain they will not find a more sympathetic Minister of Transport than myself.

Mr. RHYS: I only propose to bring up a point in connection with these roads which has not yet been raised by any hon. Member in the Debate. But before coming to that point, I wish to say I have considerable sympathy with the Minister in wanting to beautify these arterial roads. These roads run very largely through undeveloped rural districts. Some are new, some are improvements of old country roads, and in hardly any case has any consideration been given to the question of horse traffic. The horse is not yet by any means an obsolete form of trans, port in this country, and very many serious accidents have taken place owing to the slippery nature of these roads. While these roads are, in many cases, an improvement on the old roads, I would like to urge on the Minister that some siding might be left to give a foothold to horses, especially on slopes. At the commencement of the new arterial road to Southend, I am glad to say a space has been left, but elsewhere along the road no con
sideration has been given at all, and the road runs through what still is a very undeveloped rural district.
That road I am taking as an example, as it is the one I know best, because it runs through the middle of my constituency and has only been half completed. I do not know when the Ministry intend to make the other half of the road, but, presumably, in the meantime they are asking for powers in this Bill to make grass margins, and I believe it is their intention to make the road look presentable. On one side of the road is the pedestrian path, and the engineers object very strongly to horses being taken along it, though the horses cannot get a foothold on the new road. If the uncompleted half of the margin, which is at present rough clay, is to be laid down, and horses cannot be taken along it, a horse track should, if possible, to made alongside the road, which would go a long way towards meeting the objection of many horse-owners, not only in the district, but many other districts as well. I think the horse has served us very well in the past, and we might well, without any added expense, as powers are being taken to make a grass margin, see to it that horses may be taken over it, and whether it is possible to get a siding along the road itself where a horse in harness could secure an adequate foothold. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind, and give it due consideration at the proper time.

Major WHELER: This is not a case of Members wanting to get up and voice the views of their own constituency. It is a far bigger question than that. While I know the Minister wants to do all he possibly can, it is a question to Which, I venture to say, he and his hon. and gallant Friend beside him must devote considerable care if they are to do something for the countryside. It is a bigger question that the road itself. While we admit the Bill does not involve a very large sum of money, yet the state of agriculture and the rural districts through which these roads run is such that they grudge—and rightly grudge—seeing any penny spent when they realise that their burden is getting heavier day by day. Let me give an instance of one of the most serious costs of a rural district. It is the case of a rural district council in Essex. They say that their outlay for highway purposes in
1913 worked out at 1s. 6½ in the £. It went up in 1921 to 3s. 11d. At the present time it is up to 4s. 0¾d. and in the coming year they expect it to be higher. They say these sums do not include the highway rate for other highway purposes, and they are not receiving any grant from the Road Fund towards the keeping up of unclassified roads.
That is the sum total of our case as exemplified by a single instance. That is the burden the local authorities have to bear. It is because of that burden that they ask for their case to be put in this House. We realise that the Road Fund, from which these moneys are being granted, is a Road Fund which is increasing, and what I would ask my right hon. Friend is this: Can he give us some undertaking that as that fund increases he will allot a definite proportion to help these rural districts I What is going to happen in the next two or three years? Every one of these unclassified roads is getting on it more and more motor traffic, and they are not getting a penny towards the maintenance. I admit to the full that when the Minister gave us, as he did, an hour in Committee upstairs answering questions, he behaved absolutely fairly, and it is not because of that that we are delaying the Bill to-day. It is because the cry of the rural districts is exceedingly urgent, because they sec no escape from this tax, while they see an increasing fund collected, owing to the increase by leaps and bounds of motor licences, and they ask that the Minister of Transport should endeavour to allocate a definite proportion of the amount collected year by year, so that they may know more where they are than they do at the present time.
That is why we are taking up time now. It is not because we want to play off rural authorities against urban authorities. We want to see the urban authorities receive all to which they are entitled under the scheme, but we want, also, to see the rural areas receive adequate consideration. I am not quite clear whether the Minister is prepared, wherever a good case is put up for the lightening of a toll, to relieve it, but I can give a case where every motor going over a certain route has to pay 1s. 6d. each way, and that is a second-class road. I would like to know whether that sort of thing is going to be
relieved by the Minister of Transport, if, as I agree is absolutely essential, the local authorities on both sides have come to a common agreement as to what they want and are backed by the county council. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to give help from the Road Fund for this purpose, he will be doing extraordinarily good work for many of our roads in different parts of the country. In conclusion, may I once more urge the Minister seriously to consider the situation, and ask him whether he can give us some indication that some proportion of the money will be allotted in future, so that rural authorities will know how to work their own expenditure in years to come.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I do not propose to occupy much of the time of the House, because the case for the rural constituencies has been very fully laid before us. But there is one class of vehicle that really does affect rural roads, especially roads that are not fully made, and that is the heavy type—the omnibus type, or the heavy goods type—and if the Minister could find some way of improving that type, he would earn the gratitude of all the rural district councils. I suggest to him that experiments might be carried out in multi-axle vehicles. It is believed that six-wheel, or even eight-wheel vehicles, are much lighter on the road than four-wheel vehicles, and I suggest that experiments in that direction would mean a great saving of money to the Road Fund Then, I think, it is most important that material should be cheaper. In a district in a county I know, one-third of the cost of material is due to railway rates and railway demurrage. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman can find some means of easing the railway rates and reducing the time the trucks remain at wayside stations, he will also be helping the rural authorities. To sum up, the best way of helping rural councils is, first of all, by experiments for reducing wear and tear on the roads by heavy vehicles; secondly, by cheapening material; and, thirdly, possibly by giving a mileage rate to every unclassified road.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: There is just one point I should like to speak upon for a moment or two. I feel, having regard to the enormous importance of the roads of this country, that we do not get as much opportunity as we ought to have to discuss our roads. We are now spending a matter of many millions—this is au ever-increasing sum—on the maintenance of our roads, and we have a few hours every year in which to make reference to this important question. There is one point which I do not think has been touched upon in this Debate, and to which I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Transport. That is the need of prescribing a building line along our roads and highways, especially where they are not very wide. One can see houses going up every day, and we know quite well that in a short while, in the course of a very few years, the public will be called upon to put their hands deep into their pockets to find compensation for the roads to be then laid out and widened. I do very strongly urge the Minister to take power to deal with this matter, because it is unfair in this way to mortgage the future out of the pockets of the people. There is another matter to which I wish to allude, and that is the question of tearing up our roads in which to lay cables. The Post Office, I think, is a considerable offender in regard to that matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is travelling outside the scope of the Bill These matters were dealt with in the Traffic Bill a year ago, and therefore do not come at present under review.

Sir D. NEWTON: I thought that the scope of the present Bill was sufficient to allow me to include some sort of reference to these important matters, because the matter really is one of urgency to the public. If power could be taken by which the aggressions could be stopped it would be much in the public interest. However, Sir, after your ruling I shall not further direct my remarks to those particular points. I venture, however, to draw the attention of the Minister to the building line, and to suggest that we should ask for further powers to deal with the breaking up of the surface of the roads and for the laying of cables so close to them that they have to be lifted again. I raise these two points, and in view of your ruling I shall say no more.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put and agreed to.

Bill react a Second Time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — VALUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Schedule III of 32 & 33 Viet c. 67).

Sir ROBERT GOWER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the word "including," and to insert instead thereof the word "excluding."
This Amendment, if it be accepted by the House, will mean that deductions for repairs and other outgoings, in respect of flats and tenements, will be ascertained, not according to fixed rates contained in the Schedule of the Bill, but that they shall be arrived at according to the circumstances of each case. I sincerely trust that the House will not consider it presumptuous on my part if, in addressing it for the first time, I do so on a difficult matter connected with the law and practice of rating I have had some experience in this matter, and my reason for submitting this Amendment is that I think that if this Bill is allowed to pass in its present form it will involve, at least in a great many cases, the rateable value of fiats and tenements, particularly those occupied by workmen and middle-class families, being increased to an uneconomic and unjustifiable extent; and will add further to the financial burdens upon the occupiers. I know that is not the intention of this Bill, but I think that I shall have no difficulty in satisfying this House that the effect will be as stated by me. I will put my point as concisely as I can.
It is an accepted principle of the law of rating that rateable value shall represent the net annual value of the rated premises, and in order to arrive at the rateable value it is necessary to deduct from the gross value a sum which will represent reasonably and sufficiently the cost of repairs and other outgoings. In the case of what I may term ordinary dwelling houses it has been possible to apply certain flat rates—a maximum deduction which represents on the whole the
cost of repairs and other outgoings. In the Bill it is provided that those deductions shall be in accordance with the scales laid down in the Schedule. By a footnote to the Schedule of the Act of 1869 it is distinctly provided that these maximum rates of deduction shall not apply to hereditaments and buildings let out for tenements, and it has been held by the House of Lords that the same principle applies to the fiats and tenements themselves. Why was that distinction made? It will save the time of the House if I do not use my own words, but read the words of an eminent King's counsel who is one of the recognized authorities on rating law, and the author of a text book on this subject. He says:
The reason why fiats and tenements should thus have the expenses of repairs and insurance, and the other expenses necessary to maintain them in a state to command the rent, calculated according to the circumstances of each case, and not according to a fixed maximum, is a sound one, namely, that these expenses are incurred not only in the single flat or tenement which is the subject of rating, but throughout the whole building containing staircases, passages, lifts, and other parts, which are not let and are not separately rated, but are kept up by the landlord for the common use of the tenant of the flats or tenements. If each fiat were limited to a maximum deduction, as in the ease of a house, there would be, in many cases, no allowance made for the repairs, etc., of these parts, whereas buildings of every other class are allowed deductions for repairs, etc., which are intended to cover the repairs of the whole fabric, and which ought to be sufficient to do so.
I carefully considered this Bill, and arrived at a certain conclusion as to what its effect should be. I hesitated, however, before advancing my own views in this House, until I had taken the opinions of three leading rating authorities on the subject. They were three eminent King's Counsel. Each of them was consulted separately and independently of the other, and their opinions coincided, and agreed with mine. In this Bill it is sought to set down a certain standard rate of maximum deductions, not only in regard to ordinary dwelling houses, but also in the case of flats and tenements. Let me again read the words of one of the counsel to whom I have referred. What he says is this:
The Bill renders inoperative the footnote to the Third Schedule to the principal Act of 1869, and makes flats assessable in the same way as houses. It is clear"—
I lay emphasis on this—
that in some cases, if not in all, the result would be the increase of the rateable value of flats and tenements. It is manifest that flats and tenements differ from houses in many ways, notably in the fact that the rents paid include such things as caretakers and their rooms, common staircase, lifts, porters, etc., etc., and vary in different cases, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply a flat-rate of deductions such as may be done in regard to ordinary dwelling-houses. The foot-note to the Third Schedule of the principal Act of 1869 was evidently inserted so as to allow every case of bile assessment of a flat to be dealt with according to its own circumstances.
I do not propose to read the third opinion I obtained from counsel, except that part of it which says:
The effect of this note is that flats and tenements which are treated as being houses let out in separate tenements, have, under the present law, no legal maximum of deduction, and each case is treated on its own merits … The effect of this Bill"—
That is the Bill we are now discussing—
is to do away with this existing exception, and flats and tenements will be adversely affected.
That is the only interpretation we can logically place upon that part of the Bill. The House is entitled to assume that the rates of maximum deduction laid down in
the Schedule of the Act that apply to the ordinary dwelling-houses are sufficient, and only sufficient, to provide for the repairs and outgoings. It is admitted on all sides that the cost of repairs and outgoings of flats and tenements considerably exceed those that are incurred in the case of ordinary dwelling-houses. So that if this Bill is allowed to pass in its present form it necessarily follows that no deductions and no allowance can be made in respect of the additional repairs and outgoings to which I have referred. This matter was carefully considered in 1923 at the Conference of the Assessment and Valuation Authorities of the Administrative County of London, and a resolution dealing with this matter was passed. I will read that resolution to the House—I am quoting from the official publication of the London County Council. The resolution says:
That in assessing fiats, maisonettes, and residential suites, chambers, offices, etc., let at inclusive rentals, it is desirable that no attempt should be made to lay down any standard rate of allowance, and that the values should be arrived at according to the merits and the circumstances of each case, the properties being regarded in all cases as
coming within Clause 11 of the Third Schedule to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.
The effect of this Amendment, if carried, will be that the recommendation embodied in this Resolution will be given effect to and the existing law will prevail. I have mentioned the definite opinions of expert authorities I have consulted in this matter. I have read the resolution passed at the Valuation Conference. In addition to that, I have conferred with some of the leading flat owners in London. One of those flat owners has gone into this matter very carefully with a rating surveyor. The result of their deliberations is that they have come to the conclusion that if this Bill is carried in its present form, the rateable value of flats and tenements, at present assessed low, will be increased to a considerable extent and an increased rent will fall upon their tenants. I think what I have said has been sufficient to satisfy the House that it is at least possible, if this Bill is carried in its present form, a hardship will devolve upon the occupiers of flats and tenements. It has been suggested to me by an hon. Member who desires to see the Bill pass in its present form that my objection is more technical than real, because, it is alleged, it is the practice of rating authorities to make deductions in respect of what one might term abnormal repairs and allowances in the case of tenements and flats before the gross value is arrived at, and it is said that if that procedure be followed in the future, and the repairs to these flats and tenements are subject to the maximum deductions contained in the Schedule, they will be better off. I can only say it has been held by the High Court that not only can assessment committees not be compelled to make these deductions before arriving at the gross value, but that they are not entitled to do so.
I hope, having regard to what I have said, the House will be satisfied that there is at least a possibility, I put it no higher, that if the Bill passes in its present form the occupiers of flats will be prejudiced, and I venture to express the hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way either to accept my Amendment or to agree to the insertion of some other Clause which will do away with the possibility to which I have referred. I thank the House very
much indeed for the patient way in which it has listened to me on an extremely boring although important subject.

Mr. GATES: I beg to second the Amendment which has ben so ably moved by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir R. Grower). He has said practically all that can be said in favour of the Amendment with such skill and so much knowledge of the subject that it leaves very little for me to say, except, I am sure, to express the feeling of the whole House in congratulating him on his maiden effort here. Having had long years of experience as chairman of an assessment committee, I feel there is a great deal to be said, not only from the point of view of the occupier, but also from the point of view of assessment committees in favour of the Amendment. Reference has been made to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. As no doubt the House knows, Clauses 1 to 8 deal with certain classes of property and specify deductions from the gross to arrive at the rateable, and then there are Clauses 9, 10 and 11 dealing with railways, canals, docks and rateable hereditaments, not included in the foregoing classes, in which it, is stated that the deductions should be determined in each case according to the circumstances and the general principle of the law. At the end, there follows a footnote, to which my hon. Friend has referred, stating that:
The maximum rate of deductions prescribed in this schedule shall not apply to houses or buildings let out in separate tenements, but the rate of deductions in such cases shall be determined as in Clauses 9, 10, and 11.
This footnote has been the subject of a certain amount of litigation, and in the case of the Kensington Assessment Committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman at the time, it was held by the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal that the footnote applied to working-class tenements, the tenants of which got lower rents because the landlord got the benefit of the larger deductions which were allowed tinder the provisions of the footnote. Also, in another case, that of Consolidated London Properties and the Marylebone Assessment Committee, the footnote was deemed to aplly to middle-class dwellings. I submit that it is impossible to apply the flat rate mentioned in this Bill to properties like flats and houses let off in separate tene-
ments. To arrive at the proper assessment many things have got to be considered—the services rendered by the landlord in the shape of lighting, heating, and carpets on the staircase, to say nothing of repairs and so on, which enable the rents charged to be obtained.
My hon. Friend has referred to the views of assessment committees. He has quoted their actual resolution, which, I might say in passing, was moved and seconded by two members of my own assessment committee. It was originally suggested that chambers and offices should have a reduction of 30 per cent and residential suites and flats 35 per cent., but members attending the conference felt that to be inadequate at a time when repairs cost so much, and services generally are so much greater, and the resolution which has been quoted by my hon. Friend was framed and accepted by the conference. It is impossible, I submit, to apply the flat rate in this Bill to properties such as houses let in separate tenements. It would be unfair to the landlord and particularly unfair to the tenant, because having regard to the larger scale of deductions allowed under the footnote the tenants naturally have the benefit in the shape of decreased rents. I hope the Minister will see his way to fail in with the views of the assessment committees and prevent the tenants of flats being penalised, as they will be if the fiat rate in the Bill is adopted.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I rise to express my dissent from the Amendment which has been moved. I do so because I entirely disagree with the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Sir R. Gower) has put forward, though I would venture to congratulate him on the very clear and well-informed manner in which he put his case to the. House, and I am sure I am only echoing the feelings and opinions of more experienced Members than myself in congratulating him very heartily on a most successful maiden effort. He pointed out that his object is to protect the tenants of certain working-class and middle-class flats and tenements. My object is identical. This Bill has hitherto had what might be called a rather easy passage, and now that it appears to be assailed, I am glad to see
that it is also defended from benches which are usually occupied by Members of our party. Though our objects are identical, the means by which we seek to attain them differ. I am reminded of the old saying, "Where doctors disagree, who shall decide?" In the present case, we shall be fortunate in being able to refer the matter ultimately to the wise arbitrament of no less than the Minister of Health himself.
The point we have to bear in mind is that the Bill deals mainly with the terms under which gross assessment shall be converted into rateable. The point which my hon. Friend has made has reference to certain services which fall upon the owner of a building of flats or tenements, which differ from the liabilities commonly assumed by a householder as falling within the province of the allowances made in arriving at the difference between gross and rateable. He prepared the House for the argument which I put forward by attempting to refute it in advance, but the practice of assessment committees hardly supports his view. Certain services are rendered in the ease of flat or tenement-hail ding by the provision of porters, the maintenance of a lift, carpets on the stairs and so on, and by legal decisions the deductions in respect of these services have been strictly limited, but those deductions are made, where they are made, in accordance with the law, before the gross assessment is arrived at, and do not form part of the allowances which can be made in arriving at the rateable from the gross.
I venture to think my hon. Friend has rather confused the two classes of allowances. He has quoted to the House a number of eminent legal opinions. Like other Members who do not belong to that distinguished profession, I listen to legal opinions with a mixture of fascination and awe, but I realise that one is not bound to accept them unreservedly, especially if one differs on the exactness of a statement of the premises. It is scarcely necessary to say that the purpose of this Bill is to extend the allowances permitted under the Act of 1869, and a scale of allowances is laid down in the Schedule to this Bill to meet the needs, so far as repairs are concerned
not only of houses of different sizes and rents but also of tenements and Hats, and to exclude tenements and flats of the type we have in mind from the provisions of this Bill is to preclude them from enjoying advantages which this Bill is at pains to provide. I think it may be assumed that, in practice, assessment authorities will apply the maximum rates of allowance, and if that be the case, under the provisions of this Bill, the rates of allowances permitted between gross and rateable will be largely in excess of anything which has hitherto obtained.
8.0 P.M.
I appeal on behalf of the occupier of working-class and middle-class tenements that he should not be deprived of the advantages which this Bill would confer upon him. My hon. Friend made considerable play with the resolution of the Assessment and Valuation Conference of 1024. I am going to suggest to the House that the Conference, when they passed the resolution my hon. Friend has quoted, had not in mind so much the allowances between the gross and the rateable as the allowances between what is termed "inclusive rent" and "gross," and it is to that, I am informed on good authority, that the resolution refers. I can quote a case which seems to me to demonstrate the accuracy of what I have said. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) alluded to the Consolidated Properties case. On the strength of that decision of the House of Lords, the right was accorded to flat owners to claim deductions based on the note to the eleventh section of the Third Schedule of the Act of 1869, which allowed them a more liberal rate of deduction than it would be possible under Clauses 1 to 5. Now, what happened? One of the properties included in the Consolidated Properties to which that case referred was known as the Osborne Mansions. The inclusive rental plus rate of that building was £946 before arriving at the gross which was settled by arbitration. At the appeal from the assessment authorities an allowance by arbitration of £107 was made. This is what happened in practice: £946 was reduced by £107 to £839, but £839 was not the rateable but the gross; and, further, in accordance with the arbitration which was carried out, the gross of £839 was reduced by a sum of £169 to the rateable of £670. I hope I have not
misused the words "gross" and "rateable." The inclusive rent of £946 was by deduction of allowance for service. That was further reduced by deduction for repairs and other services by £169 to £670. To-day, if the same transaction were to be carried out on a gross increase of 40 per cent., the total allowance, instead of £169 as between gross and rateable, would be £352. I do not suggest that that difference is a gratuity: it is given for good reason; but I do point out that if the repairs in those days represented £169, I question very much whether the allowance for repairs to-day which would be granted would not be a good deal less than the £352 for which this Act provides.
There is the reason why I contend that, if flats and tenements are excluded from this Bill, the occupiers of such flats will lose the advantage which they would have under this Bill. That is the reason why I oppose my Friend's Amendment. As I have said, I am not sure it is necessary to pursue this matter further, considering that our mutual object is the same; but I do contend that a case has been made on the facts for the retention of flats and tenements in the four corners of this Bill. If, on the other hand, there is any risk under any circumstances to the occupiers and tenants on account of the assessment authority not fully exercising their rights or the assessment authorities misinterpreting their duty—if there be any such risk as that, then let us consider some possible compromise. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. I say here we have two classes of ideas, two schools of thought actuated by one desire, namely, to do the best for these people to whom we want to be fair all round. We appeal for guidance and assistance to the Minister of Health, and I hope he will provide some compromise, some via media, which will protect those we desire to protect even more effectively.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The House will see the dilemma in which I am placed. On the one hand, by accepting the, Amendment which has been moved so clearly and capably by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Sir
R. Gower), my hen. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) thinks that the tenants of working-class flats and tenements will be penalised as compared with the tenants of ordinary working-class houses On the other hand, if I leave the Bill as it stands, then my hon. Friend for Central Hackney brings weight of opinion to show that the same result will happen. The Bill is drafted with the intention that the occupants of these flats and tenements shall be in no worse position than the occupants of ordinary working-class houses. That is the intention of the Bill, and it is drafted by the request of the Westminster Conference of Assessment Authorities who, no doubt, took the view that it would carry out that purpose. But in this conflict of opinion as to what may happen in future, I am anxious to protect the position of the occupiers of these fiats and tenements, so that in no circumstances shall they be placed at a disadvantage as compared with their neighbours. I think I could, perhaps, meet the views of both my hon. Friends by an alternative Amendment which will come at a somewhat later stage in the Bill. I should propose to insert it after paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of the Bill, and the purpose of that Amendment would be to provide that if as a matter of fact it was found that the provision of the original Act of 1869 would have given a lower rateable value in the case. of these flats and tenements than would be given under the Bill as it stands, then the provisions of the 1869 Act would be substituted. I should move in Clause 1, page 2, line 36, at the end, to insert
and (c), if in the case of any hereditament being a house or building let out in separate tenements, the rateable value which would be produced under this Act exceeds the rateable value which would have been produced under the provisions of the principal Act, the rateable value of the hereditament may be determined in accordance with those provisions.
I think that Amendment will give the occupier the best of both points. If, on the other hand, the other view is found to be the correct one and he will be bettor off under the 1869 Act, then if that commends itself to my hon. Friend and he would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment he has down on the Paper I would then move this Amendment in its proper place.

Sir R. GOWER: After that statement, I would like to say that I willingly withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: At what point does the Minister's Amendment come in.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be on page 2, line 36, at the end.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then does the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) propose to move in the meantime?

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: In view of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, I shall be glad, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the two Amendments standing in my name.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member does not move them?

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I do not move them.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 36, at the end insert
and (c), if in the case of any hereditament being a house or building let out in separate tenements the rateable value which would be produced under this Act exceeds the rateable value which would have been produced under the provisions of the principal Act, the rateable value of the hereditament may be determined in accordance with those provisions."—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND LAND BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAITSE 16.—(Mineral rights.)

Mr. FENBY: I beg to move, in page 10, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (2).
Unfortunately, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is not able to be here to-night, and asked me to express his regret and on his behalf to move the Amendment standing in his name. If I may be permitted, I will do so very briefly. So far as the general principle of the proposals in the Bill is concerned, I am not in any way opposed to it, and I think all sections of the House will also agree. But with
regard to Sub-section (2) of Clause 16, I take a very strong objection. It does seem a peculiar position, as set out in Sub-section (2) of Clause 16, that where the minerals are valuable they are not to be vested in the Commission, but where they are not of any particular value or likely to be, then they remain with the Commission. We have now an opportunity of establishing the principle, which I always believe to be a sound one, that is that minerals should remain in the possession of the community. It is a very unbusinesslike arrangement, and that is why, on behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, I am moving the deletion of Sub-section (2).

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I do not complain of this Amendment. I know the subject is a very complicated one. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is really under a misapprehension as to the purpose and effect of this Sub-section. The object is the same as that of the whole Bill, that is to say, to leave tenants under compulsory purchase in as nearly as possible the same position as they have been under the system of voluntary purchase under the Act of 1903. Under that Act, it was provided that where a voluntary sale took place, and where the minerals were not being worked by the owner but were in the possession of the owner, those rights should pass to the Commission, subject to this, that if the Commission afterwards sold those rights or leased them, then the late owner should have a charge upon the rent realised of 25 per cent. of that rent or the net profits. That is what Section 23 of the Act of 1903 provides.
The landowner who wished to sell his land and agreed under the Act of 1903 to sell it could either work the minerals on the land himself, or, before he sold to his tenants, he could sell the mineral rights to someone else, and then the mineral rights would not pass with the land to the tenant purchaser. Under this Bill you are substituting compulsory purchase for voluntary purchase. Under the old Act, the owner who wished to sell his land might work the mineral rights, or he might sell them to someone else, or he might agree with the Land Commission for a price for his land which would take into account the mineral rights of the land. Now we want to
compel him to sell his land at a fixed price, and it is based upon the purchase value and the rental value of the surface alone, and we are compelling him to accept that price.
We felt on the Committee of which I was the Chairman that that, would not operate harshly on the landowner who had never taken any trouble to ascertain whether he had any workable minerals on his land or not. But it would be very hard on the landowner who, although he might not be actually working the land, might have spent a large sum of money on geological surveys and on preparation, but who, under this Bill, will not have the opportunity of doing that, because the land will be vested in the Land Com mission on the appointed day. Therefore, we suggest that if the Land Commission is satisfied of two things—(1) that the land has a mineral value, actual or potential, and (2) that there is a reasonable prospect of it being worked in 20 years—that they shall have power to exempt the mineral rights from passing automatically with the land. These words "actual or potential" are words that have always been inserted in Land Purchase Acts in the case of building land, and it does not come under land purchase legislation at all. We have adopted the same words in relation to the mineral rights. The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) said something about the nationalisation of minerals.

Mr. FENBY: No, I did not.

Lord E. PERCY: Of course, this is not the place to argue that question, but so long as the law of the land recognises private ownership in minerals, when you are compelling a man to sell his land purely at the surface value of that land, you must reserve to him his rights where he has taken the trouble to ascertain the mineral value and would work his mineral rights if he were allowed the opportunity, and if the guillotine of compulsory purchase was not coming down upon him.

Amendment negatived.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — IMPERIAL INSTITUTE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, to amend the law with respect to the management of the Imperial Institute, to authorise the payment, out of the moneys provided by Parliament:
(1) in each year during the five years after the commencement of the Act, of a sum of nine thousand pounds towards the expenses of the Imperial Institute and thereafter of such sum, if any, as Parliament may determine; and
(2) of such additional sum, if any, towards the maintenance of exhibition galleries as Parliament may determine."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Imperial Institute Bill has been read a Second time, and is now before a Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), which is considering it, and hearing evidence, if necessary, from any petitioners against the Bill. Before, however, the Bill can be fully dealt with in Committee, a Financial Resolution is necessary, owing to the financial Clause. As hon. 'Members will realise from the memorandum that has been circulated, the Imperial Institute is maintained from various sources. Originally, the sum of £429,000 was collected by private donations throughout the Empire, as a memorial of Queen Victoria's first Jubilee in 1887. That was spent partly in erecting the magnificent building near Exhibition Road, in what is now called Imperial Institute Road, and the rest formed an Endowment Fund bringing in approximately £6,000 a year.
Towards the remaining expenditure in connection with the maintenance of the Institute we have received, since the Imperial Economic Conference discussed this matter, an extremely generous donation of £5,000 a year from Lord Cowdray as a personal subscription, and the rest has been made up by this country, the Dominions, and the Colonies. This Resolution is to give effect to the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Conference in regard to the Mother Country's share. The Dominions sub
scribe £8,000 a year, and the Crown Colonies and Protectorates £8,000, and this represents our contribution. The Bill was introduced by the Labour Government last year in another place, and it there passed through all its stages, when, unfortunately, the General Election came. We have introduced it in identically the same form, without any alteration, in this House, and it has been read a Second time. I now ask the Committee to give us this Financial Resolution.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the word "nine" ["nine thousand pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
This is a very curious way of dealing with a very important subject. I suppose it is owing to the fate of constant changes in Government that this, and so many other Measures which are now fathered by the Conservative Government, are a legacy from its predecessor. When one realises what a violent reaction preceded the change, it is rather curious that so many Measures which see the light in this very uneventful and dull Session are attributed to the parentage of the Labour Government. The present Government are, apparently, very pleased to father many of their offspring. I want this Committee—very small in numbers at the moment—to realise its responsibility in some of these financial matters. I remember that Mr. Bonar Law, as the result of a good deal of criticism when ho was Leader of the House, gave a very sound undertaking that such Resolutions should have the benefit of a Memorandum. That stipulation has been formally complied with, and we have had a Memorandum, issued at the price of a penny, on this Financial Resolution; but I really would challenge any Member, coming to this Committee for the first time and being asked to incur a liability for five years, to get any real light as to the reason for voting ibis money.
I have no doubt that all of us are conversant with that great building, the imperial Institute, that was the pride and glory of our boyhood. I remember its being opened with great pomp and circumstance, and with great expectations. It was going to be the centre of light and learning for the Empire; it was to be a stimulus to Imperial bonds, and a
help to industry. Great hopes and expectations were aroused. Personally, I think it was a great idea, and I think it is a tragedy that those who nobly conceived this institute, which brought subscriptions from all parts of the Empire as a memorial to the great Queen, have reason to regret that this great ideal was allowed to lapse through, if I might say so, sloppy thinking, and not carefully working out the details of this great institution. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies did not trouble to tell the Committee how this situation arose. It is a very long history, and it is very well stated—as no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman, because he was the chairman of the Committee—in the very remarkable Report which was made by the imperial Institute Committee of Inquiry, and which, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, reflects great credit upon his handiwork. These -Reports are usually very dull reading, but this one is lucid, stimulating and instructive, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not think—

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, I am quite sure that it would not be in order, on the Financial Resolution, to discuss the Bill. We can only discuss now the financial provisions contained in the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: Yes; but may I say, with very great respect., that this Committee is now being asked to pass a liability of £9,000 for five years, and we must consider why it is necessary, after all these years, to come and ask Parliament to incur this liability. It is not only a matter for this Parliament, for in five years' time this House of Commons may have ceased to exist, and it is important that we should remember the very curious history which has led to this great institution having to come cap in hand in order to ask for financial assistance by a Resolution of the House of Commons. This is not the first time it has had to come and ask for assistance, and, therefore, we are hound to consider something of its past history.
In 1902, owing to the difficulties of the Institute, it was transferred to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade was responsible for its financial administration for five years. Then it passed to the Colonial Office. In 1917, the then
Secretary of State appointed a very small, but very able, Committee, presided over by no less a person than Mr. Hewins, which reported adversely on the question of an increase in the income of the Institute. I am sure that that is a relevant matter, as the Under-Secretary will see. In 1919, a very strong appeal was made to the Dominions to come to the financial aid of the Institute, but, as the Under-Secretary will remember, that appeal did not meet with a very sympathetic response. The Union of South Africa, the Commonwealth of Australia, and our awn Indian Empire, after careful consideration, did not think it advisable to help to assist the Institute to get the necessary revenue, which amounts to no less a sum than £40,000 a year. As the result, I understand, of the failure of that appeal, the hon. Gentleman conducted this very lengthy inquiry.
I do not want to get into conflict with the Chair, and accordingly I shall not discuss anything which is in the Bill. I entirely agree that that is a thing to be avoided, but I think it is most important that this Committee, before it commits itself to this large sum, should consider the financial side. At the end of the Report a balance sheet is given, which shows that the revenue required comes, not to £9,000, but to £39,000. The expenditure is enumerated. The Endowment Fund comes to only £3,426; the Annuity to only £864; and there is an amount of £1,710 for fees—an estimated amount which is purely speculative; while it remains to be seen whether those gloomy galleries, without any reconstruction, will bring in a sum of £8,000, as stated in the balance sheet. That leaves to be provided by the various Governments, £25,000. The Under-Secretary ought to make clear what guarantees he has that the balance of the revenue in addition to the grant from this House will be forthcoming from the Colonies and the Dominions beyond the seas.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Member turn over to the next page but twp—the Resolution of the Imperial Economic Conference?

Mr. HARRIS: I go further than that. I go to the Minority Report from the representative of the Union of South Africa, their High Commissioner, Mr.
Joseph Cook. Let us see what the High Commissioner for South Africa says:
I regret that I am unable to sign the report of the Committee. It is clear, from the evidence submitted to the Committee, that there is great diversity of opinion on four of the outstanding matters brought under their consideration: (a) The extent to which the Imperial Institute has achieved the objects which the promoters set before them, whether there is need for its continued existence; and (b) whether the response from the Dominions, Colonies and Overseas possessions of the Crown indicates a desire"—
That is the vital thing—
on their part to maintain the Institute, and whether they evince a readiness to contribute a fair proportion to its support.
You could not have anything much clearer than that.
(c) whether the public utility of the institute justifies the expenditure incurred.
These people from the Dominions are not mealy-mouthed. They speak out what is in their minds and do not attempt to mislead their Parliaments by misleading statements. This is a clear and emphatic statement from the representative of the Union of South Africa. He goes on to say:
and (d) whether there is not much overlapping in the work of this and other institutions with similar aims.
He further says:
It is always difficult and painful to come to such a decision as is outlined above, and, putting aside appeals to sentiment, which are no doubt inevitable, to view the matter purely from a paint of view of practical usefulness and to treat the subject entirely on its merits.
He goes on in that strain, making it quite clear that, speaking for the Union of South Africa, he is not anxious that his Dominion should be financially involved. Mr. Joseph Cook speaks in no less uncertain voice:
The evidence, so far as I am able to follow it, makes it quite clear that the Imperial Institute in its present form has reached the limits of its usefulness.
The position of my own Dominion is that nearly all the work that the Institute could do is now being done in our own Technical and Scientific Bureaux. These are becoming every year more efficient and better equipped, with the result that the work formerly done by the institute is now done in Australia, with the same thoroughness and, of course, with much greater despatch. The cost of these last year was a very large sum.
The Galleries as at present organised are, to say the least, of doubtful utility so far as the Dominions are concerned.
He goes on to say
After all, there is one unfailing test to be applied to a matter of this kind, namely, the desire of the people to make use of these institutions and their willingness to pay for the services rendered. The application of this practical test makes two things obvious: (1) that to be of the maximum service to the people of Great Britain and the Colonies thorough and speedy reorganisation is necessary; and (2) that the Dominions as a whole are finding the need of it much less as their own institutions and organisations develop. Year by year they are clothing themselves in the same technical and scientific habiliments with much the same objects in view.
The same applies to India. India has made it quite clear that she does not desire to have any financial liability for this institute, unless it is thoroughly overhauled and reorganised, and the work changed in every respect.
Are we justified, in the face of the Report, in involving the finances of this country in this very large sum for a period of five years? I realise that in the meantime this institute must go on, but I suggest that the case could be met by providing a considerably smaller sum, and for a very much less period. My own feeling is that we might commit Parliament for one year. That would be long enough. Even then, I very much doubt whether it is wise to commit ourselves to any large sum for the Imperial Institute in its present form. Obviously, an institute standing as a memorial of the Jubilee of Queen Victoria should be a live institute, and one which has the respect and confidence of the Dominions, and should be proved to be serving a really useful purpose. The institute should be of such a character that it has not the unwilling but the loyal and keen co-operation of every part of His Majesty's Dominions.
The Report most emphatically says that nearly every part of the work done by the institute at the present time, and which it is proposed to continue, is being done more efficiently, more economically and in every way in a more satisfactory manner by other organisations. It is unfortunate that these organisations were allowed to come into existence. It would have been much more satisfactory and much more to the credit of the Empire that this one institution should have been able to func
tion, but we cannot get over the fact that this Report makes it quite clear that alp these duties of the institute really can be done, and are being done, by rival institutions, and that there is considerable overlapping.
Let me take one or two of the functions of the institute. One of the purposes of the Imperial Institute was to provide a representative collection of the raw materials and manufactured products of the Empire. A very splendid and a very practical proposal, but the Report says:
It is only necessary here to state that the Institute does not at present exercise it powers under the Charter of illustrating the raw products of foreign countries and the comparative advance in agriculture, commerce and industry.
With regard to the technical information bureau which was proposed to be concentrated in this institute, the Report says:
It is to be observed, however, that the Institute does not contain similar establishments in any other part of the Empire.
Therefore, the scheme likely to be provided for by this £9,000 cannot possibly arrange for anything of that kind. A third function of the Institute under the Charter was to collect and disseminate information relating to the trade and industry of the Empire. That work, the Report says, is now covered by the work of the Technical Information Bureau. As regards trades and industries, the work of the Institute in one of its most important functions is covered by the Department of Overseas Trade, -which was established in 1917. I do not understand that the Ministry of Overseas Trade, which is a very expensive and elaborate organisation, represented by a Minister in this House, is to be abolished. I understand that the Ministry of Overseas Trade is to continue, with all its glory untarnished by this revival of the Imperial Institute, and that the voting of this £9,000 will not decrease in any way the Vote for the Ministry of Overseas Trade. We are bound to consider, now that things are changing, now that new Departments are being organised, the necessity for avoiding the incurring of such heavy liabilities in a time of great financial stringency like the present. Then arrangements were to be made by the Imperial Institute for the organisation of exhibitions. With respect to this, the Report says that the Imperial Institute does not undertake any
work in connection with exhibitions, but that this work is done by the Department of Overseas Trade and other Departments

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The object of the Bill is to have the institute under it.

Mr. HARRIS: I was told by the hon. Member that I must not refer to a Bill. That is my difficulty. If he be right in his point of Order—and I have respect for him, as an old Member of the House, in these matters—I should be precluded from referring to a Bill which is to be considered after the Financial Resolution is adopted. One of the original proposals of the institute, a very fine picturesque idea, was to promote technical commercial education, but meantime, perhaps unwisely, the College of Science and Technology—

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member must confine his arguments to the £9,000 referred to in this Resolution.

Mr. HARRIS: Yes, but we must permit the Committee to see what is involved in this Resolution. If we are to revive the Imperial Institute, let us do it on a proper scale. I want to limit the liability of this House to keep the institute alive, pending the development of a scheme which will make it of great practical use to the Empire. I do not want. to weary the Committee with too much detail, but I may point out that after a great many pages of their Report—and it is a very valuable and lucid Report, which Members of the Committee should read—on page 16, paragraph 39, they say:
On the other hand, even although the Institute as it functions to-day has ceased to perform many of the duties with which it was entrusted under Royal Charter, there is evidence to show that its remaining services are by no means the exclusive sphere of the Institute, but are carried on, at least in part, by numerous other institutions.
In other words, we are voting this money when we are going to be asked to vote in other directions money to other Departments which are doing the work equally well.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Certainly not.

Mr. HARRIS: I am prepared to accept the Report of the Under-Secretary in preference to a bare contradiction. The hon. Member will have an opportunity when I sit down to refute me, but denial is not argument. The Report makes it clear
that we have already voted to other Departments moneys to carry on the work of the Imperial Institute, and we are bound, therefore, to be satisfied that this money is going to be properly spent in the interests of the Empire and of trade. The only work which the institute is doing at present is experiments on plant and insect life. This is the only work which can be shown to have no overlapping in other Departments.
We have found, however, no overlapping between the Imperial Institute and the Imperial Bureau of Emtomology and the Imperial Bureau of Mycology.
It is excellent work, and the institute deserves every credit for doing it, but even that work is not actually done in the institute. It is done partly in the Natural History Museum at South Kensington and partly in Kew Gardens, one of which is under the Board of Education and the other of which is under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Committee should consider carefully before incurring financial liabilities, for which they are not going to get an adequate return in any direction, according to the report of a Committee presided over by a member of the present Government. We must face the facts. Meantime, every Dominion has set up offices of its own, more centrally situated and better located far business and trade. In the Strand there is a series of fine offices, fittingly terminated by the splendid building of the Dominion of Australia, where they have a complete exhibition of the products of Australia, which is convenient to business people and well organised and in direct contact with the High Commissioner and the Agent-General. At Trafalgar Square there is a fine block which exhibits the products of the Union of South Africa. On the other side of Trafalgar Square there is another new building going up which is to be occupied by the Dominion of Canada. These are more effective and in every better for the work of the Dominions than the miserable galleries belonging to the Imperial Institute.
Is it fair or right to play with a big question like this? If we are to find useful work in future for this great institute, is it not better to be sure that we take the right direction? There are located there now the headquarters of the University of London, which does its work well and is of great assistance. I
submit that, if we have money to spare, it would be better spent in making that great building a centre of imperial education. There is some hint in this report in that direction, but if we pass this Resolution in its present form we are prejudiced as regards the future of a building erected by the loyal goodwill, affection, and friendship of people from all parts of our great Empire. This recommendation is brought on towards the end of our day's business when Members are not really conscious of the importance of the issue before them. These issues may not be considered of importance to Members in various constituencies, but I am satisfied that in all parts of the Empire there is a desire that anything in which the Empire takes an interest should be worthy of it and should be conceived on the right scale. This is a scheme which, on the basis of the reports and letters, has not the sympathy and the goodwill of the Dominions. It would be a fatal mistake to commit this House for five years to a large sum like this.

9.0 P.M.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I have listened with a certain sense of amazement to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a school that is known as the Little England school, and the speech to which we have listened is undoubtedly from a disciple of that school. These are days when we are struggling to get work and business for the working and commercial classes of this country, and the hon. Gentleman has proposed an Amendment which would have the direct result of making even worse the position and reduce the offers which may be made for work and business for the working classes of this country. What is the vital weakness of our industry as we know it in the Empire and in this country? It is the fact that, whereas every business community which is of any status and every business corporation in Europe and America, is exercising to the full in its individual and corporate capacity research into trade and business, and also general propaganda, the hon. Gentleman proposes that that small section of research work that we are doing in respect of the Empire or this country should be diminished still further. We started well
when we gave opportunities for the great Empire Exhibition, for it did more to give to the world a knowledge of our great engineering and industrial capacity than anything else in the last 100 years. Now, forsooth, when these methods and this propaganda should be blazoning forth to the world still further the unique opportunity of comradeship for trade which may obtain between the Dominions and ourselves, we are told that the necessary means to that end should be still further restricted. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the palatial offices built and organised for academic and separate Dominion State purposes for the officialdom of these daughter Dominions, are sufficient in respect to the business community of this country. In the United States they have statistics and calculations upon every phase and bearing of industry in every part of the world in relation to themselves, whereas we in this country have not fully the coordinating feature of industrial statistics between even our Dominions and ourselves, nor yet between one Dominion and another. Although there has been quoted, in the Report mentioned, a suggestion that the representatives of the Dominions think that other methods should obtain, yet I challenge the hon. Gentleman to refute my statement that no business community in any of the Dominions would do other than support the greater use of the Imperial Institute in London.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Gentleman challenges me. The Federation of British Industries deliberately refused to give any evidence before the Committee.

Sir W. SUGDEN: In respect to the examination that took place, the organised industries in the Dominions, together with the employés' organisations in the Dominions, knew that they were to give evidence to men who, though public-spirited, had no vital and practical knowledge of organised labour or industry in the Dominions; they were simply a Committee of public men. Therefore the organisation of business men and the employés' association were quite correct and within their rights in refusing to give to those who were not of their own type the information, statistics and data which are essential. We ought to be proud of the fact that we are the greatest trading race that the world has known.
If we are to progress on the right lines, namely, those of the Empire Exhibition and what followed it, we must utilise to a still greater degree than hitherto the Imperial Institute and that for which it stands. A second point I wish to make is that there is no greater economist on these benches than I am. I am determined that in respect of our spending departments we shall have full value for our money. But there is such a thing as being penny wise and pound foolish; we may save £5,000 and waste £50,000. I suggest that by utilising in a greater degree the record of the work that will follow the recent exhibition, we shall help the trading community and find work for our people and help lighten taxation burdens more easily by the pos-session of greater knowledge and greater industrial capacity than by shutting up the institute and sectionising the data and information contained in the well-managed departments of the Commonwealth in this city. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about overseas trade. He knows just as well as I do that the overseas trade and its function and status and bearing are not capable of dealing with the whole of the business work and the welfare and industrial conditions of the workers of the Dominions. While it may be that the League of Nations, in its International Bureau, has been able to obtain data in respect of world-wide industry, and while we have to-day to consider the workers' standpoint internationally as well as nationally, there is no central arrangement and organisation equal to the Imperial Institute to deal with the organised labour of the Dominions and the homeland, they helping their comrades in this country and together hammering out of schemes that will find work for their own people and in this country as well.
What do the official Dominions suggest to us? Their suggestion is that such as are workfolk who cannot be contained in the industries in this country may be taken there. But we know, who belong to the great craftsmen of this country, that the official information and data tendered to us from these subordinate offices present calls for only the land-worker. We say that if the money that is called for—I would support an even larger sum—can be utilised to give trade
from the varying stratus of industrial growth in our daughter Dominions, there will be an opportunity of work for the craftsmen of this country here rather than sending him overseas. The third point I wish to emphasise is that in regard to our difficulties of general knowledge of the opportunities for education and of the psychology of these daughter Dominions. So long as separate sections only are retained instead of being co-ordinated with the Royal Imperial Institute, so long will it be that we shall never be able to function as a whole in the British Empire or to take advantage of the opportunities which are available for our Dominions to act in co-operation and co-partnership with the Mother Country. It is only by means of an institute like this that this co-ordinating factor can be obtained. I hope therefore the Committee will not accede to the Amendment. I trust that the splendid Imperial spirit which should be above any political view will animate the Committee on all sides, and that they will take the long and wide view, and will adventure helpfully in such fashion as is now permitted to us, and in such a way as to make possible an enlargement of craftsmanship, a higher standard of comfort, thus affording better opportunities and greater employment for our home folk.

Mr. SNELL: The Mover of the Amendment made it a point of criticism against the Government that they had taken over some of the Measures of the late Labour Government. I venture to say that when the record of this Government is written, that fact will count to its merit when other things will not. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) will forgive me if I approach this problem from an angle rather different from that which he indicated. It seems to me the question of spending £9,000 is not the real factor. The real factor is whether or not we are going to get full value for the money. If we are to get full value, then the price we are asked to pay for what one may call a University of Empire or of Commonwealth is extremely low. What surprises me is why, if the Imperial Institute serves any purpose at all, it should not receive far greater support on the financial side. Perhaps there is some point in the criticism of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green,
that we have heard less of the researches and less of the active work of the Imperial Institute than we might have heard. I imagine that, on principle, everybody agrees that we must have some central place, some clearing house of information about the various parts of the Empire, to which inquirers, such as possible emigrants, merchants, and scientific students, may go, and the purpose is not served if these inquirers have to go one day to Kew, another day to Kensington, and a third day somewhere else to pick up facts which should be available in one centre, accessible to the public. My criticism of this Resolution would be by way of asking: Are we getting from the Imperial Institute that efficiency which the business with which it is charged demands? If we are getting that efficiency, then I do not complain about the expenditure of a small sum of £9,000. I do wish to say, however, that we very rarely hear of its operations. Its researches very rarely come before us, and I can imagine that in its archives are stacks of useful information which neither we, nor the public, have at our disposal. The criticism which I would urge is that the Imperial Institute in taking this responsibility upon itself, should put first things first. Some of the things it does may be of vital importance, and the results of those researches should be made available in every part of this country and the Dominions. Had it come within the scope of this Resolution I should have liked to have said something about the kind of representation proposed for the administration and general oversight of this money. I will only say in an indirect way that it seems to me every part of the Commonwealth should be represented, if the Imperial Institute is going to deal with the whole Empire. For example, I think Southern Rhodesia, which is just beginning its career—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather wide of the subject before the Committee. His remarks would be relevant in Committee on the Bill, but they are scarcely relevant at this stage.

Mr. SNELL: I will defer that portion of my criticism until the proper time arrives. I urge that those responsible for the expenditure of this money should see that the nation gets a full return for it. If the Imperial Institute functions
in the way in which it was intended to, function, then, so far from creating unemployment, it will help to solve that problem. The last speaker said we were the greatest trading nation in the world. I am not so sure of that. My own feeling is that we are losing ground every day, chiefly because we are so slow to apply the results of science and research to our industry. If the Imperial Institute helps us to do that, the money will be well spent.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (WINCHESTER, CHRIST'S HOSPITAL SCHOOL FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill is a very small one, being simply a confirmation of a scheme approved and certified by the Board under powers possessed under the Charitable Trust Act of 1853. The scheme is one by which a small sum of £200 is to be paid from one part of a charitable foundation to another. The foundation in question is known as Christ's Hospital and Christ's Hospital Foundation School at Winchester, both of which were founded with money left by a certain Peter Simmons under a will dated 1586. Under this will money was left to maintain six poor old men and four young children, who were to be given meat, drink, clothing, and all other things necessary, and the children, in addition, were to receive education. Further, two divinity students were to be maintained respectively at Oxford and Cambridge. As a result of this benefaction, a hospital was established at Winchester, named Christ's Hospital, which for many years received under the same roof the old men and the boys who were to receive education and maintenance. The income, originally only £60 a year, had increased by 1896 to £860, and the trust was then divided under a scheme under the Endowed Schools Act.
The non-educational part of the charity, the six old men, was continued at Christ's Hospital, and the sum of £360 per annum was set aside for it out of the income. Bursaries of not more than £15 apiece were to be devoted to the two divinity students, and with the balance of the income a secondary school was established. Now the income has still further increased, and the school enjoys an income of £870 per annum, though a considerable part of the capital has, as years have gone by, been devoted to the building of the school.
On the other hand, the governors of the charitable trust, having a fixed sum of only £360 a year, have found it impossible to maintain the trust in full, owing to the rise in the cost of living and the cost of repairs to an old building, and, as a result, by the year 1923 the Governors had found themselves obliged to reduce the number of men who were to be maintained under the trust from six to four. They, therefore, applied for a reallocation of the funds, asking for a suns of £210 annually to be paid over to the charitable trust from the educational foundation. The Board of Education approached the local education authority in the matter, because the local education authority had, in the years that had intervened since 1896, been assisting the school from the rates, and the Board, therefore, had to confer with the local education authority on this matter, pointing out that, if this re-allocation of funds was allowed, it might mean that more money would be required from the local authority. The local education authority have made no difficulty whatever in the matter, and, therefore, last September a scheme, which is to be found in the Schedule to the Bill, was drawn up, providing for this transfer of £200 from the educational foundation to the non-educational charity. No other change in the scheme drawn up in 1896 is proposed; there is merely a re-allocation of this sum. Notice was given of the scheme last autumn, and, no objections having been made, the scheme was, therefore certified by the Board of Education last November.
I think it is clear that unless this reallocation is made, the intention of the generous founder cannot be carried out in full. The scheme, which is embodied in the Schedule of the Bill, was drawn up
before the late Government went out of office. It seems to me impossible to suggest any controversial point, inasmuch as the only body that might be prejudicially affected, the local education authority, has made no difficulty, and I therefore hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — SANDWICH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The passage of this Bill is one of the conditions under which we have negotiated the sale of the Port of Richborough to Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, and Long. The House will remember that this port was created purely for war purposes, and it justified its existence by the transport which it provided for 2,000,000 tons of warlike stores during the War. Since the War it has been used also for a very large traffic in war stores, railway material and rolling-stock, and so forth, which had to be brought back to this country, but now that all that transport is finished, the administration of this port has been very unsatisfactory, because the Government have no power to levy dues on ships or cargoes, and all the dues that were charged went to the Sandwich Haven Authority, leaving the Government responsible for spending a large sum on dredging, buoying, and maintaining the harbour facilities. So inconvenient was this obligation that when, in March, 1921, the Government negotiated the abortive arrangement to sell this port to the Queenborough group, there was an arrangement between them and the Port of Sandwich Haven Authority to promote a private Bill to get a joint control over this new port, and to bring about a revision of dues. The arrangement of that day fell through, and that Bill, which was a private Bill, necessarily dropped.
The last Government realised that Richborough was dependent for its prosperity and traffic on the development of industries in its neighbourhood, and they opened negotiations with Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, and Long, who are developing the coalfield in that area, to take over the port. An agreement has recently been concluded, under which this port will be sold to that group, subject to the passage of this Measure, to secure the purchasers an equal representation on the joint board of Haven Commissioners proposed to be set up, and in that way to relieve them of the very onerous obligation, which the Government has recently had to carry, to keep up the port and yet not get any contribution from the dues. Further, the Bill would provide for a right in perpetuity to the purchasers to cross the main Ramsgate-Sandwich road with certain railways on the level. For the moment, pending the completion of the purchase, the Bill proposes to give the powers of nominating half of the members of the new authority to the Secretary of State for War, who would transfer them to the purchasers in due course. If this Bill fails to pass by the end of next January, it is a condition in the contract that Messrs. Pearson, Dorman and Long would have the power to rescind and throw this port back on the Government. We have lost a great deal of money over this undertaking already, and I hope that that condition will not arise. The Sandwich authority is in agreement with the Government and with the purchasers on this Bill, and, if the House will now give it a Second Reading, I propose to ask that it be committed to a Select Committee.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not intend to detain the House more than two or three moments. I hope the Financial Secretary will not think that we are agreeing in detail to this Bill to-night. I myself question very much the proposal for the nomination by the War Office of 20 per cent. of the Board, and handing over to this private contractor 50 per cent. of the constitution of the board. MY own view is that this is a very questionable practice altogether, the Government entering into a bargain, and then making the passage of any Bill through this House a condition of this bargain.
The whole thing is an unparliamentary procedure, and I cannot compliment the Financial Secretary—or perhaps it was his predecessors who started it. In Committee, certain of my colleagues intend to raise the constitution of this board very acutely. I have only to say to the Financial Secretary that I wish to give notice that when the Bill comes on in Committee we intend to amend it.

Mr. SCURR: I want to join with the hon. Member (Mr. Buchanan) who has just sat down and say that we are profoundly dissatisfied. The Prime Minister recently made a declaration with regard to the necessity of peace in industry. When you are handing over to a firm of contractors part of the representation, at any rate a similar representation should be given to the workers, because, after all, if we are going to have peace in industry, it is absolutely necessary that the workers should be given direct interest in the management. Very often many of the difficulties that arise in industry are due to the fact that the workers are simply treated as machines. They have no interest at all beyond that of merely earning their salary. But if they are given an opportunity of being able to take part in the management of the concern, then they are able to give their ability and skill, and it helps the board and the management. For these reasons, I hope the Financial Secretary will understand that we are prepared to resist the Bill if these concessions are not granted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, that all Petitions against the Bill, presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Guinness.]

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, "That Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short but urgent Bill. All it seeks to do is to give power to the Board of Trade to make reciprocal arrangements with foreign Governments and the Dominions where regulations affecting shipping are in force in this country and there are regulations in force in the Dominions or in the foreign country which are substantially the same or equally effective. It introduces no new principle at all. The principle is laid down in the Merchant Shipping Acts. It was found, that in the matter of wireless telegraphy on ships, you might have provisions almost identical and equally effective in a foreign country, but there was no power to recognise their equivalence and accept them. The French Government were enforcing certain wireless regulations which do not differ in their general effect from ours but which are not in terms identical. It is obviously in the interests of chipping that an arrangement should be made, but there is no statutory power to enter into such an agreement. We are seeking by this Bill the power to make an agreement of that kind. Let me make it plain that we do not seek to vary in any way the Regulations we apply to our own shipping. That is a matter for which we legislate from time to time. It merely means that where we have laid down provisions, we shall be in a position to make mutual arrangements with foreign countries or with our Dominions, so that for the purpose of entering into each other's ports our provisions will hold good in their ports, and their provisions will hold good in ours. That is all the Bill seeks to do, and the House will agree it is, obviously, a necessary and businesslike arrangement; and, in view of the fact that the French Regulations have been suspended to enable us to make statutory arrangements, I hope the House will allow the Bill to be read a Second time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — MONEYLENDERS BILL [Lords].

Ordered,
That so much of the Lord., Message [27th March] as communicates the Resolution, That it is desirable that the Moneylenders Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg the leave of the House to occupy them for a few minutes in reference to the question of the Army Supplementary Reserve. I am afraid that once again I am seeking unpopularity in this House, as it is one of those questions in which, from misguided motives of patriotism, this House decides to enter into a conspiracy against the wishes and liberties of the masses of this country. On the 16th March, the Secretary of State for War, when speaking of the Army Supplementary Reserve, spoke as follows:
I want to say a word or two about the Supplementary Reserve which was started by my predecessor last year. The Supplementary Reserve was started in order to attract skilled tradesmen, who are becoming more and more necessary to the Army. The demand is greater than the supply coming in normally through the ordinary channels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1925; col. 1887, Vol. 181.]

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Nineteen Minutes before Ten of the Clock until To-morrow.